Palumbo, Antonello. An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經. Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research Series 7. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Co., 2013.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
"A date before the end of the (Southern) Qi 齊 dynasty in A.D. 502 is suggested by repeated glosses in the text explaining Indic words in 'the language of Qi' (Qi yan 齊言)." |
129 and n. 70 |
|
Palumbo discusses this text in some detail. It comprises "an almost complete prātimokṣa text, the earliest known in China and with no transmitted counterpart. It was copied under the W. Liang 西涼, ruling in Gansu...and bears a colophon written on 10 January 406...which makes it the oldest dated item from the cave library". Palumbo also cites previous studies by Yabuki and Tsukamoto. There is significant overlap between the final part of the text and EĀ 48.2 (a composite text). |
124-128 |
|
"The translation of the Vibhāṣā of *Śītapāṇi...extant [T1547]...[is] almost certainly...a revised version that Saṃghabhadra produced at Luoyang in 390-391, with the assistance of Saṃghadeva and of the Chinese monk Fahe 法和.” "Although direct evidence is lacking, it seems very likely that Saṃghabhadra collaborated with Saṃghadeva and Fahe's retranslations at least in the case of [T1547]...since he had been the recited of that text in 383." Palumbo gives a detailed summary of the circumstances of translation of T1547, as reported in Dao'an's preface (20-22). He also separately discusses the revision by Saṅghadeva (61-62). |
21 n. 28; 61-62 |
|
Palumbo critiques the arguments of Nattier (2010) that the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 T309 is a "forgery" by Zhu Fonian. Palumbo suggests that the main biographical notice upon which Nattier relies may be unreliable, arguing from comparison to other sources that it is "both incomplete and inaccurate". Palumbo suggests that the translation lexicon of T309 suggests a translation date before the period of Kumārajīva. Palumbo states that he bases this judgement on "cursory examination" of T309: the main terms he adduces are 聞如是, 泥洹, 阿須倫 for asura, and "the old translations for the 37 bodhipākṣika-dharmas". |
90-92 |
|
Palumbo argues that the Zhuanji sanzang ji zazang zhuan 撰集三藏及雜藏傳 T2026 was translated by members of Dao'an's translation group, in association with their production of a hypothetical lost "first recension" of the *Ekottarikāgama ("EĀ") that Palumbo believes, on the basis of information given by Dao'an in his preface to T194, that the group produced in 384 (by December at the latest). Palumbo identifies the version of the *Ekottarikāgama associated with T2026 with the surviving *Gopālakasūtra T123, and an unspecified number of further sūtras in a group of twenty identified by Mizuno as vestiges of an alternate translation of EĀ. Palumbo gives a summary of the content of T2026, 109-110. He also surveys the treatment of the text in catalogues. Palumbo writes that "the date and transmission history of [T2026] are rather obscure". The Taishō ascription and date is based upon Zhisheng (KYL), who dated the text on the basis of his impression of the style. "Zhisheng's dating of the text was evidently based on mere impressions, which were nevertheless not ill-founded." In earlier catalogues, starting with Fajing, the text is mentioned without any information about date or translator. It is missing from CSZJJ and LDSBJ. DZKZM (Mingquan) gives the same information as Fajing, but adds that the information comes from the Zhenji-si catalogue 真寂寺錄. Palumbo identifies "nearly identical" wording in T2026 and 放牛經 Gopālaka-sūtra T123 (比丘！能行是十一事者，於此法中種法律根栽枝葉滋茂，多所覆蔭, T123:2.547a26-27; 比丘道具十一行。成道樹根栽枝葉茂盛多所覆蔭, T2026:49.4a23-24). He notes that the Gopālaka-sūtra is "in great relief" in T2026. On this basis, Palumbo argues that T2026 was originally attached as preface or appendix to a recension of the Zengyi ahan jing (Ekottarikāgama) which included T123 (114). Having summarised and critiqued work by Mizuno and Lin Jia'an on possible lost versions of EĀ, Palumbo, without pretending to examine the problem in full detail, suggests that the material in Mizuno's alternate recension of EĀ, including T123, "might represent a preliminary (rather than 'other') translation of the Zengyi ahan jing...subsequently superseded by a different rendition strategy, privileging the kind of long, composite scriptures that are frequently found in the received text". Palumbo also notes that T2026 shares certain features with T1507, and some of the same features are not shared with T125 (the received EĀ). "One wonders, then, whether [T2026] and [T1507] might not share a common authorship." Palumbo argues that the use of 涅槃 in T2026 gives us a terminus a quo of 382. He then studies a possible correspondence between a line in T2026 and a verse by Zhao Zheng 趙整 (f. 375-392), who in 385 became a monk and took the name Daozheng 道整. Against Zürcher, who finds the source of Zhao Zheng/Daosheng's verse in the Hua hu jing, Palumbo argues that it can be best understood in light of T2026. Palumbo suggests that these facts "suggest that [T2026] had been introduced and presumably translated in Chang'an between [382] and 385". Palumbo further supports a terminus ante quem of 385 by arguing that T1507, which he regards as completed before Dao'an's death in 385, has verbatim correspondences with T2026, which show that the authors of T1507 were aware not just of the content of T2026, but its Chinese translation (259-260). Palumbo summarises the complicated relations between the extant EĀ T125, T2026 and T1507 as follows: "The commentary [T1507] reflectes a Zengyi ahan jing [=EĀ] essentially identical to the received text [T125] at least for the first four chapters, and notably including its peculiar 'Preface', but at the same time it also presupposes, and to a great extent relies upon, the 'Narrative' [T2026], which was instead attached to a different version of the Zengyi ahan jing [=EĀ]" (260). |
121-124, 143-144, 213-220, 260 |
|
"...compiled...most probably before 512, since it includes entries on an early, short version of the Ayu wang jing 阿育王經 rather that on the authoritative one translated in that year by Saṃghavara/Saṃghavāra." The text occasionally uses the phrasing 梁言, which indicates it was written after the founding of the Liang in 502. |
129-130 and n. 72 |
|
Palumbo suggests that "the original of [the Fenbie jing 分別經 T738] may date from the 4th c. and have been written in Central Asia." He discusses a passage "suggesting that the scripture was composed at a time when the written codification of the [Vinaya] rules was ongoing but not yet established or generally accepted." He notes that a text by this title, with length matching T738, is mentioned among anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ. Fajing, however, lists the title among apocrypha, specifically, in a list of eight texts "produced by Xiao Ziliang" 蕭子良所造. The ascription to Dharmarakṣa (still found in the Taishō) first appears in LDSBJ. However, Palumbo argues that the text is "unlikely" to be a "wholesale concoction of the prince, as nothing of the largely Mahāyānist outlook that prevailed in the court Buddhism of southern China at the end of the 5th c. finds room in it". He notes that the text mentions China as a place where the endtimes will climax, but says that "the text shows no obvious influence of Chinese indigenous beliefs". Seemingly, this clue is what leads Palumbo to regard the text as possibly of Central Asian origin. |
201-204 |
|
The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 T1507 is actually a commentary on Chs 1-3 and part of Ch 4 the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T125. Palumbo (2013) is now the most detailed study on this work. Palumbo summarises the treatment of T1507 in historical catalogues, 164-170. He also surveys prior studies in modern scholarship, 171-178. A long Appendix also gives a detailed summary of the contents of the text, and its correspondences to relevant parts of T125, 325-364. Palumbo's arguments are too complex to summarise here in full. He argues that T1507 is closely connected to the Zhuanji sanzang ji zazang zhuan 撰集三藏及雜藏傳 T2026, and the "Preface" to the *Ekottarikāgama (EĀ 1). All these documents give a narrative about the compilation of the Āgamas, with similar features: a fourfold model of the canon, with a *Kṣudrakapiṭaka in addition to the other usual "three piṭakas"; and the peculiar notion that the First Council was attended by 84,000 arhats; a structure of the Sūtrapiṭaka that gives pride of place to EĀ (214-215). T1507 shares with T2026 other features that relate them even more closely than either is related to EĀ 1: ascription of the Abhidharmapiṭaka to the Buddha's disciple Mahākātyāyana; the use of 大法 for "Abhidharma"; the use of a specifically worded conceit characterising the Abhidharma as "the insignia of all Dharmas"; and a similar outline of the content of the four Āgamas (215). On this basis, Palumbo suggests that T1507 and T2026 might be have been authored by the same persons (216). Palumbo argues: "Though it betrays a partially Chinese authorship...the commentary is not a 'Chinese' text insofar as it visibly relies upon contents and explanations that can only have been provided by a foreign informant...a number of dogmatic positions...rich narrative contents, which in most cases are not attested anywhere else in the Buddhist literature in Chinese....Most importantly...the commentary knows and reports traditions on the transmission of the Ekottarikāgama that cannot have originated in China." On the basis of internal evidence, Palumbo argues further that the group that produced the text must have included: 1) A foreign informant, whom Palumbo identifies with the person the text refers to as "that man" 其人, and suggests should be identified with Dharmanandin (whose name Palumbo reconstructs as Dharmananda), and was the source of information which could only have been known by someone from outside the Chinese context. 2) *Dharmanandin, as suggested by a) the presence of particular Aśoka narratives, and b) a listing of the four Āgamas that gives priority to EĀ and MĀ. In particular, the contribution of Dharmanandin is indicated by the presence in T1507 of a version of the story of Aśoka's brother *Sugātra, which is paralleled in the Divyāvadāna, but, according to Palumbo, was not otherwise available in China at the time (241, 256). 3) probably Dao'an, as indicated by a) an "esoteric" view of the Vinaya (meaning that its contents should not be communicated to laypersons), b) the identification of Kātyāyanīputra, the author of the *Jñānaprasthāna, with the Buddha’s disciple Mahākātyāyana, and the identification of the *Jñānaprasthāna with the Abhidharmapiṭaka, and c) various “mannerisms” and “hobbyhorses”---all paralleled in Dao’an’s writings (大法 for "Abhidharma", 身子 for Śāriputra, the Analects allusion 未墜於地; 249-251). 4) a Chinese scholar, perhaps either Dao'an himself or Zhao Zheng 趙整, as indicated by an allusion to Mao Heng's 毛亨 preface on the Book of Odes (Shi jing), and a set of verses that rhyme (247-249). 5) Zhu Fonian, as indicated by three items of translation terminology (石室 for Takṣaśilā, 真淨 for Śuddhodana, 火鬘童子 for Jyotipāla māṇava; 251-254). Palumbo writes, "It is all but a foregone conclusion ... that [T1507] is the work of the original translation team, which produced the first redactions of the Zengyi ahan jing [Ekottarikāgama] in 384-385: Dharmananda, Zhu Fonian, Dao'an, and Zhao Zheng, whose distinctive voices echo throughout the commentary" (257). He connects this scenario of production of the commentary alongside the root text with Funayama's theory of "lecture texts" (258-259). Palumbo argues that the text must have been produced between 383, which is the earliest date at which the root text, the Ekottarikāgama, was available in any form; and 402-406, i.e. the period of Kumārajīva's activity. Palumbo refers to a) the "esoteric" view that the Vinaya should not be communicated to laypeople, which he thinks could not have survived the moment in 405-406 when Kumārajīva's translation of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya was produced in a glare of publicity. He also argues this pre-Kumārajīva dating on the basis of various other ideas and features in the text: b) the identification of Kātyāyanīputra, the author of the *Jñānaprasthāna, with the Buddha’s disciple Mahākātyāyana, and the identification of the *Jñānaprasthāna with the Abhidharmapiṭaka, c) the fact that canonical citations are from older texts (esp. for the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, which Palumbo believes would have been replaced by Kumārajīva's new translation T475), d) reference to older Prajñāpāramitā texts as the "Larger Version" 大品 (which term later came to refer to Kumārajīva's translation). On the basis of his thesis that Dao'an was among the authors, Palumbo then further narrows the date of the text down to the period before 385, when Dao'an died (258). Palumbo's theories about the production of T1507 are intertwined with his theories about the translation history of the *Ekottarikāgama in China. In brief, he argues that four different recensions of EĀ were produced at the end of the fourth century: three in Dao'an's translation group in Chang'an, 383-385; and one more by Saṅghadeva and Fahe in Luoyang between 390 and early 391 (see separate CBC@ entry at https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/text/2237/). Within this frame, he identifies the root text commented upon in T1507 as his hypothetical third recension, produced in early 385 by Dao'an and Fahe (revising a second translation); and he identifies this third recension with the extant T125 (261). Against this backdrop, Palumbo considers various hypothetical scenarios for an even more precise date for T1507 (258), before concluding that it must have been produced after March 385, when the third recension was completed; he argues, finally, that it was probably completed between March/April and June/July of 385 (261). (Note that this theory requires the revision of the traditional date of Dao'an's death, for which see 55-58.) This was a time when Chang'an was embroiled in the thick of war, and indeed, Palumbo speculates that the apparently incomplete and rough character of T1507 is to be explained by work being cut off by the death of Dao'an and the fall of Chang'an. Palumbo shows that the T1507 version of the story of Aśoka's "hell-prison", also paralleled in the Paṃśupradānāvadāna (Divy. 27), corresponds "nearly verbatim" with the same story as found in the *Dharmavivardhana-sūtra T2045, translated in 391. In comparison to the T2045 story, T1507 is shorter. However, surprisingly, he argues that we should not treat this as evidence that T1507 was compiled with reference to T2045, and therefore completed after 591, because a second story from the Aśoka cycle found in T1507 is not found in T2045. Instead, he proposes that the source for the T1507 version was an oral tradition borne by Dharmanandin --- who went on to recite the Vorlage for T2045 at the time of translation in 591. In order for this argument to carry, Palumbo has to conjecture that a draft translation of the text eventually represented by T2045 was produced between 383 and 385, and he supports this conjecture with reference to some suppositions about the relation between the moral of the narrative, the ideology of kingship, and Dharmanandin's relations with his patrons (238-246). Palumbo also reports an alternate title for the text, 增壹阿含經疏, which is reported in CSZJJ (T2145:55.21c13) alone among all the catalogues. Palumbo prefers this title, as more accurately representing the nature and content of T1507. He connects the text to the emergence of the shu 疏 as a distinct genre of Buddhist commentary from the very practice of lecturing on sūtras (Palumbo here follows in part the work of Mou Runsun), and he even suggests that T1507 is our earliest exemplar of this genre (262-265). The current title, by contrast, Palumbo proposes, was "probably the brainchild of a slipshod palace librarian in Jiankang" under the Liang (6c). |
185-186, 255-258, 262, and passim |
|
Citing "an as yet unpublished study on the textual history" (his own) of CSZJJ T2145, Palumbo says, "This source has a rather complex textual history, and the received text...appears to merge two different editions of the book, which Sengyou issued in respectively ca. 503 and ca. 515 A.D. The first edition included a biographical section, whereas the second edition was entirely bibliographical. In the interval between the two, Sengyou gathered new but not always reliable information, stemming especially from the Buddhist bibliographers at the court of Liang Wudi....The thirty-two biographies of monks involved in translation...seem to go back mostly to the first redaction. In a few cases, however, the biographies show traces of revision." |
50 |
|
Palumbo argues for the apocryphal nature of the anonymous "postscript" to the "Sūtra collected by Saṃgharakṣa" 僧伽羅剎所集經 T194, CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 71b24-c7, on the basis of the following six points: 1) Whereas the preface of T194 (which survives in both T194 and the CSZJJ and is considered to be an authentic piece by Dao’an) says that *Saṃghabhadra(?) 僧伽跋澄 used a manuscript copy of the scripture (“齎此經本”), the postscript instead reports that he orally recited (“口誦”) the text; 2) Whereas the preface gives the translator as Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, the postscript gives it as “Vibhāṣā and Buddharakṣa” 毘婆沙佛圖羅剎; 3) According to the preface, the translation was completed on the 30th day of the 11th month of the 20th year of the Jianyuan era (December 28th 384), but the postscript instead says that the translation started on this day; 4) The monk styled “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙 in the postscript likely refers to Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍, but Buddhayaśas came to Chang’an only as early as in the mid-400s; 5) The postscript refers to Dao’an 道安 with the epithet “An Gong” 安公, but this is a practice attested only from the late 5th century; 6) The postscript refers to Dao’an’s “Mohe boluoruo poluomi jing chao xu” 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄序 with its alternative title “Da pin xu” 大品序, but the only other instance of this alternative title is found Lu Cheng’s 陸澄 (425–494) Fa lun 法論 compiled in the late fifth-century. Palumbo thus concludes that “the ‘Postscript’ is a distorted record written long after the fact, probably in the South towards the end of the 5th c. […]” [Note: Although this does not necessarily undermine the conclusion of Palumbo’s argument, it is possible that “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙 in this preface refers rather to the text titled Vibhāṣā 鞞婆沙 (referred to in the CSZJJ also as “雜阿毘曇毘婆沙” or “毘婆沙”; T1547 is believed to be a revised version of this text; see the CBC entry on T1547) than to a monk known as “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙. The Taishō punctuates the sentence in question as follows. 罽賓比丘僧伽跋澄。於長安石羊寺口誦此經。及毘婆沙佛圖羅剎翻譯。 This might have influenced earlier scholars to take “毘婆沙” and “佛圖羅剎” as the two translators of the text. However, the sentence can be punctuated and translated instead as follows: 罽賓比丘僧伽跋澄。於長安石羊寺口誦此經及毘婆沙。佛圖羅剎翻譯。 This reading is supported by the fact that in the preface to the Vibhāṣā, as well as in the chronological bibliography of the CSZJJ, this text is indeed reported to have been “recited” (諷誦/口誦) by *Saṃghabhadra(?) 僧伽跋澄 and translated by *Buddharakṣa(?) 佛圖羅剎. See T2145:55.10b5–12 and 73c3–7 --- SL.] [Note: Although Palumbo, in his argument, only mentions Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍 as the possible candidate for a monk styled “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙, the contemporary Dharmagupta 曇摩崛多 and Dharmayaśas 曇摩耶舍 were also known as “毘婆沙法師二人” collectively (T1858:45.155c12 –18). In fact, the first three of the four references given in Palumbo’s footnote on this point (footnote 178) are references to Dharmagupta and Dharmayaśas, and only the last reference is about Buddhayaśas --- SL.] |
86-89 |
|
This ascription was first assigned to the text by Fei Changfang. T2146 placed it among 53 apocryphal sutras, more specifically in a list of eight by Xiao Ziliang. However, Palumbo notes that it is "unlikely that it could be a wholesale concoction of the prince". [MR: The eschatological theme of the text might suggest that it is unlikely to have been translated into Chinese so early as Dharmarakṣa.] |
201-203 and n. 48 |
|
Palumbo suggests that the portion of CSZJJ treating anonymous texts is most likely based upon the holdings of the Liang imperial library in Hualin yuan 華林園, rather that the holdings of Dinglin si 定林寺. He bases this suggestion on the following factors: (1) Sengyou's preface critiques nameless monks tasked with compiling official catalogues [which should refer to events of 508 or thereafter at the earliest]. (2) This work included the compilation of the 眾經要抄 in 88 fascicles (lost), i.e. excerpts from the scriptures, and Sengyou's list includes numerous titles of 抄經. Sengyou himself was critical of the practice of making such excerpts and circulating them as separate texts, making it unlikely that the library of his own monastery, Dinglin si, would include such texts in large numbers. (3) At the end of the list of texts that are available, he says that they were "newly collected" 新集. Palumbo suggests that this refers to the Dinglin si collection. By contrast, titles listed in the second text are "missing" and "not seen", and the list is based upon examination of various catalogues. A final note to the catalogue says that the available texts have "been copied" 已寫 and are "in the repository" 在藏, while the others "have not yet been copied" 未寫 and are "currently missing" 今闕. Palumbo suggests that this means that the "missing" titles were at another library, and in the process of being copied. (4) Many of the texts, including those noted as "missing" or apocryphal, are cited in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which was based upon the imperial collection. Thus, Palumbo believes that there was "a process of cross-acquisition between the two libraries". |
164-168 |
|
Following the preface attributed to Sengrui, Palumbo dates the translation of the Chuyao jing T212 to the spring of 399, and identifies the "Master" (shi 師) He 和 as being most likely Fahe, the former chief editing assistant in Dao'an's team. Based on Fahe's biography, Palumbo surmises that Fahe most likely journeyed back to Guanzhong upon an invitation from Yao Xu 姚緒 (fl. 384-406), partook in this project, and died there. Citing Hiraoka 2007, Palumbo also suggests that T212 might have been a compilation of miscellaneous materials produced in China. Palumbo also mentions Jan Nattier's similar view (shared via personal communication) based on her observation that T212 shows clear dependence on T210, Zhi Qian's translation of the Dharmapāda. |
63-64, n. 130 |
|
Palumbo observes that the terminology of T197 evinces a style that is otherwise associated with Zhu Fonian, such as 真淨 for Śuddhodana and 偷婆 for *stūpa*. Since T197 is either listed as anonymous by reliable sources like CSZJJ or suspiciously ascribed to Kang Mengxiang by Fei in LDSBJ, Palumbo proposes possible connection of this text with Zhu Fonian. |
252 |
|
Palumbo summarises the circumstances of translation of T1543 on the basis of the preface at CSZJJ 72a9-b19. Translation began on 6 June 383, and probably ended, Palumbo suggests, around late January 384. Zhu Fonian translated, and Hui Li and Sengmao acted as bishou. Dao'an and Fahe then revised the result. Palumbo argues further that the extant text is "a revision that Saṅghadeva prodcued in Luoyang, probably in A.D. 390". |
31-32 w. n. 56; 74-75 w. n. 152 |
|
Palumbo summarises the circumstances of translation of T1549 on the basis of Dao'an's preface at CSZJJ 71c8-72a28. Saṅghabhadra, Dharmanandi(n) and Saṅghadeva handled the foreign text; Zhu Fonian translated; Huisong acted as amanuensis; Dao'an and Fahe revised; and Zhao Zheng polished the text. |
32-33 |
Palumbo argues that the eulogy to Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠法師誄 ascribed to Xie Lingyun 謝靈運 in the Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集 is "almost certain spurious". |
88 n. 179 |
|
|
S.797 contains verses that are almost identical to those found in EĀ 48.2. Palumbo is cautious about the conclusions we can draw from the parallels he points out, since he notes that it "does not necessarily imply a forgery" (viz., in EA)—the translator could have recognised a block of text in his Indic Vorlage, and used an existing translation known to him. |
126-127 |
|
Palumbo holds that the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121 was compiled by Baochang 寶唱 on the basis of the texts held at the Liang imperial library, and "largely based on an earlier chrestomathy, the now lost Zhongjing yaochao 眾經要抄, which was composed in 508. Palumbo dates T2121 itself to 517 "or shortly thereafter". He discusses the relation between T2121, the Palace library, and the projects of Sengyou and Baochang, 165-168. |
134 |
Palumbo argues that the Gopākala-sūtra T123 (parallel to EĀ 49.1) was especially pivotal in the process of expanding from a text with rubrics up to the Tens, to include the Elevens, since it inaugurates the Elevens (118-119). He refers especially to the version of the Gopālaka transmitted as an independent sūtra, T123, which is treated by Mizuno as one of a group of scattered texts representing vestiges of an alternate EĀ translation. Palumbo points out that the phrase 比丘道具十一行。成道樹根栽枝葉茂盛多所覆蔭, T2026 (XLIX) 4a23-24 is almost identical to 比丘能行是十一事者，於此法中種法律根栽枝葉滋茂，多所覆蔭, T123 (II) 547a26-27. He comments, "coincidence is out of the question", and notes that the T125 parallel in 49.1 does not feature phrasing that matches as closely. On these grounds, Palumbo argues that T2026 was produced in conjunction with a lost, alternate translation of EĀ, which he identifies with a first recension produced by Dao'an's group in Chang'an in 384, and documented in Dao'an's preface to T194. He regards T123 as having formed part of that alternate EĀ, and he hypothesises that his conclusions for T123 hold for the some or all of the group of texts identified by Mizuno [viz. T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684], though he explicitly cautions that "we cannot be entirely sure whether all the 20 parallels located by Mizuno were indeed part of it" (155). Further indirect evidence of the dating for the hypothetical first recension of EĀ, to which T123 was supposed to belong, is found in Palumbo's dating of T2026 to the period between 382 and 385 (216-220); Palumbo holds that T2026 and the first recension of EĀ were intimately related, and probably produced in conjunction by the same group of people. |
118-119, 143-144, 155 |
|
|
Palumbo dates Baochang's catalogue to 516. He bases himself on the Xu gaoseng zhuan. |
147-148 n. 106 |
|
Palumbo treats a passage in which DZKZM quotes Baochang, and it therefore appears that Baochang (not DZKZM itself) quotes Daozu's catalogue (147-150). In discussing this passage, Palumbo suggests that the supposed 晉世雜錄 of Zhu Daozo was an early 6c forgery. Palumbo cites Tan Shibao (1991): 111-120, and his own Palumbo (2003): 180 n. 31. |
150 w. n. 114 |
|
Palumbo refers to Liu (1998) and Palumbo (2001): 44-48 for arguments that the Hua Hu jing dates somewhat later than was previously thought, viz. to the late 4-early 5c. |
218-219 |
Palumbo disputes the theories of Anālayo (2011) and Hung (2013) that EĀ 50.4 was produced by different translators to the remainder of EĀ T125. He prefers rather to explain the differences in style between EĀ 50.4 and the rest of the present EĀ as "the expression of a different and arguably earlier stage in the process of translation of [EĀ]" --- referring to his conjectured first recension of EĀ, which he thinks was produced by Dao'an's group in 384, and which he identifies (at least in part) with the collection of individual sūtras identified by Mizuno as vestiges of an alternate translation of the collection. |
274-275 n. 13, 280 n. 21 |
|
|
Based on a complex examination of a host of external evidence (including catalogue entries and Dao’an’s prefaces) and intertextual relations with the Fenbie gong de lun 分別功德論 T1507 [for which he prefers the title Zengyi ahan jing shu 增一阿含經疏, as given in CSZJJ] and other texts, Palumbo proposes the following timeline for the production of various versions of the *Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 (EĀ), eventually resulting in the extant T125. Palumbo argues that our evidence indicates the one-time existence of four redactions in total (summaries at Palumbo 48, 94, 271-272): 1. Work on some version of EĀ began early in 384. Palumbo refers to Dao'an's Preface to the "Sūtra of Saṅgharakṣa" 僧伽羅剎經 T194 for information about a preliminary translation of EĀ in 46 juan, produced alongside a version of the Madhyamāgama, and complete by December 28 384 (the day on which T194 was completed) (Palumbo 45-46, 54) (十一月三十日乃了也。此年出中阿含六十卷。增一阿含四十六卷。伐鼓擊析[柝SYM]之中而出斯百五卷, CSZJJ T2145 [LV] 71b20-22). This is the version that Palumbo counts as the first redaction. Palumbo identifies this recension with Mizuno's "alternate" translation of EĀ (https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/source/4/), especially the Gopālaka-sūtra 放牛經 T123 (Palumbo explicitly cautions that "we cannot be entirely sure whether all the 20 parallels located by Mizuno were indeed part of" this EĀ recension). 2. According to Dao'an's preface to T125 itself (discussed by Palumbo 36-49, with a full translation 39-44), work on (that version of) the text began in summer 384 (May to August), with the original text recited by *Dharmananda 曇摩難提/曇摩難陀 [scholarship to date has usually reconstructed this name as Dharmanandin; Palumbo gives his rationale for this different reconstruction at 5 n. 12---SC], Zhu Fonian as the translator, and Tansong 曇嵩 as the amanuensis. Dao'an states that this version of the text was in 41 juan (divided into two parts of 26 and 15 juan respectively), with a total of 472 sūtras. This version was complete by February 385 (以秦建元二十年來詣長安...至來年春乃訖。為四十一卷。分為上下部。上部二十六卷, CDZJJ T2145 [LV] 64b8-12). According to Palumbo's reconstruction, the result of this work was a second redaction. 3. With Senglüe 僧略 and Sengmao’s 僧茂 assistance in proofreading, Dao’an and Fahe 法和 further revised the text for a period of 40 days, which Palumbo places in March/April 385. This word resulted in Palumbo's third redaction, also in 41 juan and 472 sūtras, but now with one additional scroll of summaries compiled by Dao'an and Fahe (this reported additional fascicle has not been transmitted). 4. Later, Saṅghadeva and Fahe, discontent with the accuracy of this work, extensively revised or retranslated EĀ again (Palumbo 66-82, esp. 70, 75-76), as part of a larger project in which they aimed to rework all the products of Dao'an's group, and reportedly achieved their aim for quite a number of texts. Palumbo's principal primary source for this development is Daoci's Preface to the Madhyamāgama (which he translates, 68-70). Daoci lists the texts produced by Dao'an's team, and then says that Saṅghadeva and Fahe issued anew the "Abhidharma" and the *Vibhāṣā 廣說, and "all those sūtras and Vinaya [texts]" produced by the Dao'an group, excepting only the Madhyamāgama itself (which was to follow), T194, T1547 and the *Prātimokṣa (即從提和更出阿毘曇及廣說也。自是之後。此諸經律漸皆譯正。唯中阿鋡僧伽羅叉婆須蜜從解脫緣。未更出耳, CSZJJ T2145 [LV] 64a2-5). This statement clearly implies that the pair produced a new version of EĀ. Palumbo argues that this work was most probably done in Luoyang between 390 and early 391 (76). Palumbo believes that most probably, no new Indic Vorlage was available for this work, so that it would have been largely of the nature of a revision of the Chang'an text. On the basis of far-ranging and highly complex arguments, Palumbo further argues that his hypothetical Recensions 1 and 3, in particular, differed somewhat in content. In part, his argument to this effect rests upon further arguments that associate Recension 1 with the Zhuanji sanzang ji zazang zhuan 撰集三藏及雜藏傳 T2026, and the production of Recension 3 with T1507. As already mentioned, Palumbo believes that internal evidence associates T2026 with a scattered collection of texts identified by Mizuno as vestiges of a one-time alternative translation of EĀ, and with the *Gopālaka-sūtra T123 in particular. On this basis, he argues that Mizuno's "alternate EĀ" in fact represents surviving fragments of Recension 1. He believes, then, that T2026 was produced alongside Recension 1, and complete by July 384. By contrast, the association of the extant T125 with T1507 is rather obvious, since T1507 comments on the first three and a half chapters of EĀ (in a manner that shows it knows a text very close to the extant T125). Palumbo argues, on the basis of fine-grained examination of internal evidence, that T1507 was compiled by the original team that translated EĀ, including Dao'an, Dharmanandin, Zhu Fonian, and possibly Zhao Zheng 趙整 (see separate CBC@ entry at https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/text/2155/). He believes that T1507 was probably in its present form by Dao'an's death (which he places a few months later than the traditional date, in summer 385). He also believes that the authors of T1507 knew a version of the collection very close to the extant T125, not just for the chapters they comment upon, but for the remainder of the collection as well (see esp. 274 w. nn. 6-13, where he aims to demonstrate "references" in T1507 to EĀ 24.5, 29.6, 29.9, 30.3, 32.5, 26.5, 42.3, and 50.4). He therefore believes that T125 was also complete, at least in content, by Dao'an's death, though he shows, on the basis of ample evidence, that the sequence and structure of the collection (or collections) referred to as Zengyi ahan jing was quite volatile at least down to the early sixth century (129-144). |
48, 94, 271-272, and infra |