Source: Forte 1984

Forte, Antonino. "The Activities in China of the Tantric Master Manicintana (Pao-ssu-wei 寶思惟: ?-721 A.D.) from Kashmir and of His Northern Indian Collaborators." East and West, n.s. 34 (1984): 301-345.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Forte notes that Zhisheng asserted that *Maṇicintana translated the Wenshushili genben yi zi tuoluoni jing 文殊師利根本一字陀羅尼經 T1181 between February 2nd 702 – January 21st 703, with three collaborators: Huizhi 慧智, Li Wuchan 李無諂 (as 譯語) and Li Wuai 李無礙 (as 筆受). A section of the original colophon of *Maṇicintana’s text was recorded by the anonymous author of 根本大和尚真跡策子等目錄 T2162 who listed the date of publication as the “23rd day of the 1st month of the 3rd year” (February 13th 703) and the place as Tiangong Monastery of Luoyang.

Edit

310-311

 Forte notes that Zhisheng asserted that *Manicintana translated the Wenshushili genben yi zi tuoluoni jing 文殊師利根本一字陀羅尼經 T1181 between February 2nd 702 – January 21st 703, with three collaborators: Huizhi 慧智, Li Wuchan 李無諂 (as 譯語) and Li Wuai 李無礙 (as 筆受). A section of the original colophon of *Manicintana’s text was recorded by the anonymous author of 根本大和尚真跡策子等目錄 T2162 who listed the date of publication as the “23rd day of the 1st month of the 3rd year” (February 13th 703) and the place as Tiangong Monastery of Luoyang. *Manicinta, *Manicintana, 寶思惟 Huizhi, 慧智 Li Wuai 李無礙 Li Wuchan, 李無諂 T1181; 大方廣菩薩藏經中文殊師利根本一字陀羅尼經

Forte notes that Su Ting 蘇頲 attributed seven works to Maṇicintana: Jin guangming jing 金光明經, Banjia jing 榜迦經, Wenshushili zhou zang jing 文殊師利咒藏經, Guangbo yan jing jing 廣博嚴淨經, Tuoluoni jing 陀羅尼經, Yu xiang gongde jing 浴像功德經 [cf. T697], Da baoji jing 大寶積經. Forte notes, however, that Zhisheng's list does not coincide with that of Su Ting, so that there are clearly two different lists with only one title in common (the Yu xiang gongde jing = T697). Forte suggests that Zhisheng did not record the texts contained in Su Ting’s list because he was a bibliographer and was only interested in recording the person who he considered directly responsible; Su Ting, however, recorded all of the texts for which Maṇicintana was involved in the translation process. Forte argues that we should trust Su Ting’s list, as he was alive during Maṇicintana’s lifetime, and misattributions are thus unlikely. On the premise that Su Ting's texts could be works in which Maṇicintana played even a subsidiary role, Forte then attempts to identify the works in question with works in the extant Taishō, as follows:

金光明經: T665 ascribed to Yijing 義淨, in which Maṇicintana indeed played a part;

榜迦經 (p. 322 ff.): the editors of the Quan Tang wen 全唐文 proposed that this might be an error for Lengqie jing 楞伽經 = some version of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra; Forte proposes that it might rather be the "apocryphal" [Shi suofanzhe] Yuqie fajing jing [示所

犯者]瑜伽法鏡經 [T2896], a Three Stages text in which Maṇicintana is elsewhere also alleged to have played a part;

文殊師利咒藏經: "perhaps" 曼殊室利菩薩咒藏中一字咒王經 T1182, also ascribed to Yijing 義淨, in which Maṇicintana indeed played a part;

廣博嚴淨經: "probably a fresh translation of the Avaivartikacakra-sūtra"; Forte does not identify this with any extant canonical work;

陀羅尼經: "the over-simplified title...prevents us from even establishing which Dhāraṇī it is"

浴像功德經 [cf. T697]: "it could not have differed much from in its content from the work of the same name translated at [Luoyang] by Manicintana himself and retranslated in 710 by [Yijing];"

大寶積經: this should refer to T310, and would mean, on Forte's hypothesis, that Su Ting was recording the fact that Maṇicintana participated in Bodhiruci's massive translation; however, Forte discusses problems raised by contradictions between this and the information conveyed by Zhisheng (318).

Edit

315-318, 322

 Forte notes that Su Ting 蘇頲 attributed seven works to Manicintana: Jin guangming jing 金光明經, Banjia jing 榜迦經, Wenshushili zhou zang jing 文殊師利咒藏經, Guangbo yan jing jing 廣博嚴淨經, Tuoluoni jing 陀羅尼經, Yu xiang gongde jing 浴像功德經 [cf. T697], Da baoji jing 大寶積經. Forte notes, however, that Zhisheng's list does not coincide with that of Su Ting, so that there are clearly two different lists with only one title in common (the Yu xiang gongde jing = T697). Forte suggests that Zhisheng did not record the texts contained in Su Ting’s list because he was a bibliographer and was only interested in recording the person who he considered directly responsible; Su Ting, however, recorded all of the texts for which Manicintana was involved in the translation process. Forte argues that we should trust Su Ting’s list, as he was alive during Manicintana’s lifetime, and misattributions are thus unlikely. On the premise that Su Ting's texts could be works in which Manicintana played even a subsidiary role, Forte then attempts to identify the works in question with works in the extant Taisho, as follows: 金光明經: T665 ascribed to Yijing 義淨, in which Manicintana indeed played a part; 榜迦經 (p. 322 ff.): the editors of the Quan Tang wen 全唐文 proposed that this might be an error for Lengqie jing 楞伽經 = some version of the Lankavatara-sutra; Forte proposes that it might rather be the "apocryphal" [Shi suofanzhe] Yuqie fajing jing [示所 犯者]瑜伽法鏡經 [T2896], a Three Stages text in which Manicintana is elsewhere also alleged to have played a part; 文殊師利咒藏經: "perhaps" 曼殊室利菩薩咒藏中一字咒王經 T1182, also ascribed to Yijing 義淨, in which Manicintana indeed played a part; 廣博嚴淨經: "probably a fresh translation of the Avaivartikacakra-sutra"; Forte does not identify this with any extant canonical work; 陀羅尼經: "the over-simplified title...prevents us from even establishing which Dharani it is" 浴像功德經 [cf. T697]: "it could not have differed much from in its content from the work of the same name translated at [Luoyang] by Manicintana himself and retranslated in 710 by [Yijing];" 大寶積經: this should refer to T310, and would mean, on Forte's hypothesis, that Su Ting was recording the fact that Manicintana participated in Bodhiruci's massive translation; however, Forte discusses problems raised by contradictions between this and the information conveyed by Zhisheng (318). Bangjia jing 榜迦經 Da bao ji jing 大寶積經 Guangbo yan jing jing 廣博嚴淨經 Jin guangming jing 金光明經 Tuoluoni jing 陀羅尼經 Wenshushili zhou zang jing 文殊師利咒藏經 Yu xiang gongde jing 浴像功德經

The Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni zizaiwang zhou jing 不空羂索陀羅尼自在王呪經 *Amoghapāśakalparāja-sūtra T1097 (in three juan) was translated by Maṇicintana along with only one collaborator, Degan 徳感 who, according to Zhisheng, “received [the translation] in writing.” This text is not mentioned in the 695 DZKZM, and awaited publication until 712. Forte argues that the text’s exclusion could not have been an oversight, as Maniciṇtana and Degan were also part of the team who compiled DZKZM itself. Considering that Degan was one of the “champions of orthodoxy”, Forte comments that it while it could be understood that in excluding the text, the DZKZM compilers were label it heterodox, in that case it would not make sense that it was translated in the first place. Considering the fact that T1097 expounds techniques such as “how to enter a harem” or how to “gain possession of hidden treasures by means of a corpse”. Forte concludes that its exclusion was due to its secret rituals, which were inappropriate for general publication.

Edit

308-309

 The Bukongjuansuo tuoluoni zizaiwang zhou jing 不空羂索陀羅尼自在王呪經 *Amoghapasakalparaja-sutra T1097 (in three juan) was translated by Manicintana along with only one collaborator, Degan 徳感 who, according to Zhisheng, “received [the translation] in writing.” This text is not mentioned in the 695 DZKZM, and awaited publication until 712. Forte argues that the text’s exclusion could not have been an oversight, as Manicintana and Degan were also part of the team who compiled DZKZM itself. Considering that Degan was one of the “champions of orthodoxy”, Forte comments that it while it could be understood that in excluding the text, the DZKZM compilers were label it heterodox, in that case it would not make sense that it was translated in the first place. Considering the fact that T1097 expounds techniques such as “how to enter a harem” or how to “gain possession of hidden treasures by means of a corpse”. Forte concludes that its exclusion was due to its secret rituals, which were inappropriate for general publication. T1097; 不空羂索陀羅尼自在王呪經