Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008.
Following the principles laid out by Nattier herself (29), in the case of items ascribed to a translator in the canon/tradition, but not listed in her Appendices/Indices, "the attribution is not, at the present state of our knowledge, considered to be genuine". In such cases, a reference to Nattier (2008), without page number, indicates that the ascription is regarded as not genuine because it is not discussed.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. Nattier suggests this text could be compared with T604, T605 and T792. 55 n. 100: Daoan regards the text as anonymous, and the ascription to Zhi Qian "stems from Fei Changfang...and need not be taken seriously." |
55 n. 100 |
|
Nattier considers this text a translation of Zhi Qian 支謙. |
126–128 |
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Kang Mengxiang as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Yao as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Kang Mengxiang as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier points out various features of the style of the text (even outside T101(9) and T101(10), for which see below) which are atypical of An Shigao's other works. She is not definitive in her conclusion, but says that "the language and style is clearly archaic, and...appears to be related to An Shigao's usage....We may provisionally include T101 (excepting...) as an 'adjunct text'--that is, one that is (though not produced by the great translator himself) highly likely to be associated with his lineage" (68). |
67 ff. |
|
Nattier discusses this text alongside T109. Ui accepted them as authentic works of An Shigao, but not Zürcher. Nattier identifies some specific lexical features otherwise unknown in Shigao, and also notes that these two texts display uncharacteristic four-character prosody, and uncharacteristic five-character verse. "It seems quite certain that it is not the work of An Shigao." Zürcher thought that they were still Han texts; Nattier is not so sure, since she thinks some features of the vocabulary were probably Zhi Qian coinages. |
51-52 |
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Yao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Yao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
|
This text occurs within a text otherwise ascribed to An Shigao, but was unknown to Daoan, and treated by Sengyou as anonymous. |
53 |
|
The traditional ascription to Zhi Qian is not regarded by Nattier as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Kang Mengxiang as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Lokakṣema as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier clearly does not regard the traditional ascription to Kang Senghui as reliable. However, it is not entirely clear [to me: MR] from n. 111 what more we might conclude about the nature of the text. |
151 n. 111 |
|
Nattier reports on work by Harrison, arguing that T362 is actually by Lokakṣema. Relevant works: Harrison, Paul. "Women in the Pure Land: Some Reflections on the Textual Sources." Journal of Indian Philosophy 26 (1998): 556-557 and n. 16-18. Harrison, Paul, Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Kazunobu Matsuda. "Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha." In Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. III. Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. 2, edited by Jens Braarvig, 179-214. Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2002. |
86-87 |
|
Nattier summarises work by Paul Harrison presenting this reascription (swapping T361 and T362 between Zhi Qian and *Lokakṣema). Relevant works: Harrison, Paul. "Women in the Pure Land: Some Reflections on the Textual Sources." Journal of Indian Philosophy 26 (1998): 556-557 and n. 16-18. Harrison, Paul. "On the Authorship of the Oldest Chinese Translation of the Larger Sukhāvatī-vyūha-sūtra.” Unpublished conference paper, International Association of Buddhist Studies Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1999. Harrison, Paul, Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Kazunobu Matsuda. "Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha." In Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. III. Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. 2, edited by Jens Braarvig, 179-214. Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2002. |
86-87 |
|
"Not a single text can reliably be credited to Kang Sengkai. While there well may have been such a monk living in north China during the Wei period, his name simply became a peg on which to hang the attribution of texts which are obviously of much later vintage." None of his texts are ascribed to him by Sengyou or Daoan, and Fajing only ascribes T310(19) to him out of the three texts that eventually came to bear his name. Internal evidence shows that even this text has a much later style, e.g. 如是我聞. |
158-159 |
|
Ascribed to Lokakṣema, but discussed by Nattier (2008):84-86 in tandem with T418 as problematic, and probably revised. She suggests that the two may form a "rhetorical community" with T632, which also shares similar features. This text abounds in non-Lokakṣema vocab more than any of the other texts discussed. Vocab is consistent throughout. At the very least, "it has surely been thoroughly revised". |
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
||
|
Sengyou's catalogue entry credits Weiqinan ["*Vighna"] with having brought the text from India, but the translations are said to have been by Jiangyan and Zhi Qian. The CSZJJ preface is regarded as by Zhi Qian, and indicates that the text was further modified by the author of the preface after translation of the Indic manuscript by/in consultation with Jiangyan. The ascription to Weiqinan only appears in later catalogues (beginning with Fajing). |
114-115 |
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. This is shown by her usual "silent" method of excluding the text from her index; but in this case, Nattier in fact also uses this text as her example for the use of this silent method. She cites a study by Fang and Gao 2007 which established on the basis of internal evidence that the ascription to An Shigao is incorrect, and argues briefly that the same conclusion could be reached from external evidence, since the text is treated as anonymous in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and first ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ. |
29 and n. 60 |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Lokakṣema as reliable. Nattier says that it contains six-character verse, like T418 (which, for this reason, is regarded as probably revised by Zhi Qian), and that the verses of the two texts should therefore be compared. |
119 n. 25 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. Nattier explicitly calls it an "archaic translation of unknown authorship". |
127 n. 42 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the attribution to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. In fact, Nattier uses this text as an example of texts for which the ascription is first found in Fei Changfang, but is "self-evidently impossible"; 15 n. 26. |
15 n. 26 |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. In fact, she uses this text as an example of texts for which the ascription is first found in Fei Changfang, but is "self-evidently impossible". |
15 n. 26 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription of this text to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
This text actually contains three unrelated scriptures, which have somehow been amalgamated. T735C corresponds to a portion of the Qi chu jing, T150A(1) AND (3) (both!). T735C only should therefore be dissociated from Zhi Qian. |
131-132 |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. The only thing Nattier says of this text (following Zacchetti) is that it "shares a great many peculiar features with T605, and must be directly related to it in some way." |
55 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. In fact, Nattier uses this text as an example of texts for which the ascription is first found in Fei Changfang, but is "self-evidently impossible". |
15 n. 26 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
The ascription to Dharmarakṣa first appears in Fei Changfang. However, nobody seems to have passed a strong opinion for or against this ascription. The content is almost identical to T101(9). |
66 n. 147 |
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
Nattier treats T624 and T626 as "third-tier" texts in the broad group of texts somehow associated with Lokakṣema. She states that a notice attributed to Zhi Mindu supports the ascription to Lokakṣema, but they also contain anomalous features. "Still more distant from Lokakṣema's usual general style, and exhibiting a much higher ratio of translations to transcriptions than in the second-tier group..." Cf. Miyazaki (2007). |
84-85 |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
This is one of three independent sūtras that actually appear amalgamated as a single text, T735. T735C is identical with portions of "the ubiquitous Qi chu san guan jing" 七處三觀經 (65), i.e. T150(1) and (3), and as such, is more likely to be closely associated with An Shigao than with Zhi Qian. Hayashiya (1937) thought he could be confident that the group of texts in which this text falls were indeed by An Shigao, but Harrison (2002) is much more cautious, saying that we can only ascribe them to An Shigao "provisionally, as a translation which may have been made by him". |
50-51, 131, 65-66 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
Nattier regards this text as problematic (and says that there are no core text associated with Bo Yan). Sengyou ascribes texts with this same title to both Zhi Qian and Bo Yan. It does not show any strong signs of Zhi Qian's authorship. We are stymied in testing the ascription to Bo Yan by the fact that we have no existing point of comparison (this is the sole extant text supposed to be by him). Nattier thus tentatively ascribes it to him, pending further study. Hayashiya, the most detailed study of T328 to date, credits it to Dharmarakṣa, following later catalogues. All three of Bo's "supposed translations" are described as retranslations of existing works, and two are assigned to Zhi Qian by Sengyou. CSZJJ says that all three of his translations were lost. GSZ says he translated six scriptures, not three, but only names one (T361!). CSZJJ further contains a conflicting record about a text of the same name. |
155-157 |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. |
||
|
"Not a single text can reliably be credited to Kang Sengkai. While there well may have been such a monk living in north China during the Wei period, his name simply became a peg on which to hang the attribution of texts which are obviously of much later vintage." None of his texts are ascribed to him by Sengyou or Daoan, and Fajing only ascribes T310(19) to him out of the three texts that eventually came to bear his name. Internal evidence shows much later style, e.g. 如是我聞 |
158-159 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. |
||
|
This work has been studied extensively by Zacchetti. Nattier summarises by saying that this commentary is "anonymous, but evidence contained in its preface, as well as certain distinctive usages within the text itself, make a third-century date extremely probable". |
164 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. . |
|
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T474. [T474 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T532. [T532 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
"Not a single text can reliably be credited to Kang Sengkai. While there well may have been such a monk living in north China during the Wei period, his name simply became a peg on which to hang the attribution of texts which are obviously of much later vintage." None of his texts are ascribed to him by Sengyou or Daoan, and Fajing only ascribes T310(19) to him out of the three texts that eventually came to bear his name. Internal evidence shows much later style, e.g. 如是我聞. |
158-159. |
|
|
Nattier discusses this text alongside T105. Ui accepted them as authentic works of An Shigao, but not Zürcher. Nattier identifies some specific lexical features otherwise unknown in Shigao, and also notes that these two texts display uncharacteristic four-character prosody, and uncharacteristic five-character verse. "It seems quite certain that it is not the work of An Shigao." Zürcher thought that they were still Han texts; Nattier is not so sure, since she thinks some features of the vocabulary were probably Zhi Qian coinages. |
51-52 |
|
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. The text is treated as anonymous by Daoan; but it is cited in T1694, and this establishes a date for it of the second or early third century. |
165-166 |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T561. [T561 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
Nattier notes that Sengyou considered this text an abridgement of an earlier work. A similar title, 孛本經, is also ascribed to Lokakṣema. "If this ascription is correct---and the text in question is no longer extant, so we cannot consult it directly---this would imply that Zhi Qian's Bo jing chao is yet another example of his revision of a text previously translated by Lokakṣema." |
133 |
|
Attritubed to An Xuan 安玄 and Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 in the Taisho, but to An Shigao by Daoan. Nattier notes that it is possibly an original composition by An Shigao, not a translation. Cf. also Zacchetti (2004, 2008). |
63-64 |
|
Nattier concludes that the Fa jing jing 法鏡經 (T322) was translated in the latter part of the second century CE by Yan Fotiao together with layman An Xuan. Nattier designates this text as the sole extant work reliably attributed to these two translators. Her assertion is supported by both internal and external evidence. Sengyou's catalogue listing for this text is drawn from Dao'an's, and the Fa jing jing is mentioned by name in Sengyou's biography of these two translators (55.96a14). Likewise, a preface by Kang Senghui, preserved in the Chu sanzang ji ji, also credits the text to Yan Fotiao and An Xuan. As for internal evidence, Nattier argues that the style of the Fa jing jing is unique, and there is no comparable text produced by any other translator. Both Harrison (1987) and Zürcher (1991) agree in accepting this text as the work of Yan Fotiao and An Xuan. According to Nattier, the Fa jing jing 法鏡經 is a translation of the Ugraparipṛcchā-sūtra. Despite the fact that no Indic language version of the text has been preserved, Nattier argues that the comparison with the other two Chinese translations, along with the later translation into Tibetan, allows us to be reasonably sure about the content of the underlying source text. In light of this evidence, Nattier says that Yan Fotiao and An Xuan's translation is remarkably accurate. |
40-41; 90-93. |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T632. [T632 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao 安世高 as reliable. |
|
|
Nattier reports the opinion of Shi Guopu, who argues that T474 is the reported translation by Dharmarakṣa, on the grounds that: (1) she regards the Dunhuang commentary P3006 as the work of Dao'an; (2) Dao'an was critical of Zhi Qian's translations, and so would not compose a commentary on one of his works. (Nattier does not regard Shi's argument as persuasive.) Citing Shi Guopu 釋果樸. Dunhuang xiejuan P3006, Zhi Qian ben Weimojie jing zhujie kao 敦煌寫卷P3006支謙本維摩詰經注解考. Taipei: Fagu Culture Press, 1998. |
140 and n. 78. |
|
Nattier mentions that some scholars have regarded the ascription of this text to Zhi QIan with suspicion, basing themselves upon the fact that Sengyou, in CSZJJ, reports the text as lost (T2145 [LV] 6c14). They have instead speculated that it may be the version of Dharmarakṣa, which Sengyou lists as extant (T2145 [LV] 7c1). However, Nattier herself urges caution: "Given the fact that Dharmarakṣa borrowed extensively from Zhi Qian's terminology, even adopting elements of his style (e.g. the use of six-character verse), it is often difficult to differentiate the work of these two translators without an extensive terminological analysis. Such an analysis has not yet been carried out with respect to T474." In support of the ascription to Zhi Qian, she notes: (1) T474 glosses by saying 漢言, whereas Dharmarakṣa habitually says 晉言; (2) T474 uses a name for Avalokiteśvara, viz. 闚音, which is highly characteristic of Zhi Qian, while not using another equally characteristic of Dharmarakṣa, namely, 光世音. Nattier concludes: "Both the vocabulary of the text--which offers numerous other instances of vocabulary pioneered by An Xuan and Yan Fotiao in addition to the name Kuiyin--and its style are congruent with other works by Zhi Qian. The text exhibits a strong four-character prosodic pattern, with some passages in five- and seven-character verse. While future in-depth studies of the terminology and style of the text will be most welcome, at present there seems to be no reason to doubt that the text is the work of Zhi Qian." |
140-141 |
|
“In a recent study Saitō (2003) has argued that T558, rather than T557, should be considered the work of Zhi Qian. His argument, based both on the testimony of scriptural catalogues and on the pattern of rhyme in the verse sections of the text, is well crafted, and it seems quite persuasive as far as it goes. But the vocabulary used in the text tells a different story. Despite its brevity...T558 is virtually saturated with vocabulary that occurs numerous times in other translations by Dharmarakṣa, but never in texts by Zhi Qian. This is true of both the prose and the verse sections, so it seems that the attribution of T557, rather than T558, to Zhi Qian should be retained.” |
143-144 |
|
This text may have been "composed by an author who was familiar not just with Zhi Qian's translation of this scripture, but with his earlier fanbai as well." But "it seems unlikely that it could have been composed by Zhi Qian himself." Nattier cites as evidence the fact that T373 features vocabulary otherwise only found in Zhi Qian; but on the other hand, that the name of Amitābha Buddha is not presented in the way characteristic of Zhi Qian's translations. See also Nattier, "Names of Amitābha/Amitāyus in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations (2)” (2007a): 384-385. |
118 n. 20, 21 |
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T624. [T624 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T322. [T322 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T511. [T511 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
165 |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T151. [T151 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
165-166 |
|
For Nattier (83), T632 represents a complex case. She observes that it resembles T418 (PBSASS) in many respects, and that the two must be related. They both appear to "have been subjected to very similar processes of revision." "A close comparative study of [T418] and [T632] will surely be rewarding." Suggests of T418 that it will be more productive to examine it as part of its own "rhetorical community", the other members of that group being T632 and T313. It does contain six-character verse; 119 n. 25. Nattier (2008): 141 says that it is the most Lokakṣema-like work in Zhi Qian's corpus; "a good working hypothesis would be that this is a revised version produced by Zhi Qian of an earlier product of Lokakṣema's school." She says it is still clear that it is Zhi Qian's work, in some sense, because of the six-character verse, and the solidity of Sengyou's ascription. She thinks its style might be explained by its belonging to an early phase of Zhi Qian's career; 147. |
83; 119 n. 25; 141; 147 |
|
T185 is traditionally ascribed to Zhi Qian, but Nattier holds that it is a complex case. She says that it has an "extraordinarily complicated" relationship with T184 and T196: "It is not possible to derive any one of them in a straightforward manner from any of the others. What is clear is that all three of these biographies were actively used, and that all of them (including the version originally produced by Zhi Qian) were updated more than once. The text as we have it still bears Zhi QIan's fingerprints, however, one of which is the use of the phrase shen bu mie 'the spirit is not destroyed'. It is also frequently stated that Zhi Qian's T185 borrowed material from another archaic biography of the Buddha...T188. This seems less certain, however....In my view, a direct relationship between these two texts has yet to be demonstrated." |
135 |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T13. [T13 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T602. [T602 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
This note applies to the verse portions of the text. Nattier discusses T418 along with T313, both ascribed to Lokakṣema, as problematic, and probably revised. In T418, verses are atypical of Lokakṣema (it is atypical for Lokakṣema to use verse at all, and he typically translates verse into prose), as is the terminology they contain. The verses also contain translation rather than transcription terms. This means that the verses adopt a different translation strategy from that typical for Lokakṣema, a new TYPE of terminology. Sakurabe observed in 1975 that the Taisho apparatus for this text attests to significant variants (usually lining up K vs SYM) , and this is evidence for revision. Harrison subsequently showed that K is itself a hybrid. The second half is almost identical to SYM, which represents a revision. In the first half, however, K differs significantly from SYM, and appears to preserve a state of the text prior to revision. Thus, in Ch. 3 and half of Ch. 4, the gathas are rendered in prose in K, but in verse in SYM. Harrison has suggested that the revision represented by SYM (and the second half of K) could have been made by Dharmaraksa, or Zhi Qian. Nattier adds that it is possible the text was revised more than once, because non-Lokakṣema phraseology is concentrated in the verses in seven-character lines; the terminology of five- and six-character lines does not differ so greatly from Lokakṣema. Nattier suggests that T632 resembles T418 in several respects (see notes on T632 also), and they should be studied in conjunction. Nattier also suggests the two may form a "discourse community" with T313. |
81-83 |
|
Nattier argues that the “He weimi chi jing ji” 合微密持經記 (“Preface to the Synoptic Anantamukha-dhāranī”), which many scholars have taken to be by Zhi Qian on the basis of the fact that it bears a byline reading Zhi Gongming 支恭明 (T2145 [LV] 51c17-52a10), cannot in fact be by him, nor anywhere near so early. Nattier bases her argument upon the fact that the note refers to Zhi Qian's own translation, as one of the three texts combined into the "synoptic edition"; and also the fact that it contains information anachronistic for Zhi Qian's time. |
117-118, n. 17 |
|
Four texts are ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in the present Taishō. Sengyou only lists a title probably corresponding to 中本起經 T196. Zürcher, however, who usually follows Sengyou's reports of Dao'an's catalogue, in this case accepts the additional ascription to Kang Mengxiang of the 修行本起經 T184. This is because T184 and T196 together comprise a continuous narrative, with the last paragraph of T184 repeated verbatim at the beginning of T196. Further, the 太子瑞應本起經 T185, by Zhi Qian, contains a revised version of both T184 and T196, and Zürcher believes this means that Zhi Qian knew both as a single text. Zürcher is also swayed by the presence of glosses in T184 reading 漢言, and the fact that T184 is ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in the Gao seng zhuan. Nattier, however, argues that in their present form, the two texts have had different histories, even if a single text corresponding to both was originally produced by Kang Mengxiang. Nattier reviews "extraordinarily complicated" testimony in the early catalogues on titles corresponding to that of T184 (105-106). Some of those catalogues ascribed the text to Kang Mengxiang, but not all. Because T184 is sometimes ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in early catalogues, scholars have often assumed that T184 was used by Zhi Qian in preparing T185. However, Nattier summarises arguments by Kawano Satoshi, who has shown that T184 is often more expansive and elegant that T185. This violates the normal pattern usually seen when Zhi QIan is revising works by others: "that Zhi Qian adheres quite closely to both the content and much of the wording of the older version, while 'upgrading' some of its Buddhist terminology and recasting it in a more polished and elegant style". Further, T184 has passages in verse which in T185 are entirely in prose, but there is no known case in which Zhi Qian replaces verse with prose; "on the contrary, the use of a wide variety of metric forms is one of the hallmarks of Zhi Qian's style." Nattier summarises: "It is impossible to explain the content and style of [T185] as the result of a revision by Zhi Qian of [T184] as we know it today." Kawano proposes, on the basis of Daoan's remarks, that T184 is an E. Jin version of the earlier text reported by Dao'an under the title 小本起經, and that in composing T185, Zhi Qian drew on an older (now lost) version of the same Xiao benqi jing. [Note: On p. 108, Nattier in fact writes, "Kawano proposes that the present [T184] *is a revision of* an Eastern Jin .... version of the Xiao benqi jing..." The words "is a revision of" might give the mistaken impression that Kawano argues for a revision process in two steps: (1) Xiao benqi jing > E. Jin version; (2) E. Jin version > (via "revision") T184. However, these words are a typo in Nattier, and Kawano simply argues that T184 is a revision made under the E. Jin of the earlier Xiao benqi jing. --- MR] Nattier further examines internal evidence (formulae, ordinary verbs, Buddhist terms) which "confirm Kawano's contention that these two texts as we have them cannot be the product of the same hand. She concludes that although the two texts, as Zürcher noted, form a single narrative unit, "it now seems quite clear that these two texts are products of a different milieu." She accepts the ascription of T196 to Kang Mengxiang, but suggests that T184 "appears to be the product of a different time and place. If Kawano's reasoning is correct, it may be significantly younger, produced a century or more after his time." |
104-109 |
|
As Hayashiya pointed out in 1937, T101(27) is duplicated in T150A(1) and (3) (parts only of each text). Nattier herself discovered a further duplicate of a "stray fragment" of the text in T735 (XVII) 537b16-c27. |
51-53, 65-66, n. 78 |
|
As Hayashiya pointed out in 1937, T101(11) is duplicated in T150A(30) under the title Ji gu jing 積骨經. |
51-53, 65-66 |
|
[Note that Nattier 56 ff. several times incorrectly gives the number of this text as T397(13), following T itself, which gives the title 十方菩薩品第十三 --- MR.] This text is ascribed to 那連提耶舍 in the canon, but to An Shigao in SYM. Nattier argues on internal grounds that the language is too anomalous for it to be a genuine An Shigao work. Before Nattier, Shizutani (1974): 233-237 discussed the work, taking it to be by An Shigao (Nattier criticises Shizutani's views, 56 n. 103); and the work was also discussed by Deleanu (1993): 43-44. Nattier argues further that the style of the work is very similar to Lokakṣema. She proposes that it "was produced in a community whose members considered themselves to be disciples (or descendants of disciples) of An Shigao, but who also had access to translations produced by Lokakṣema's community;" "We can say with confidence...that the Wushi jiaoji jing is not the work of An Shigao himself." |
56-59 |
|
Nattier argues that 禪行法想經 T605 and 法受塵經 T792 might not actually be by An Shigao. For T792, she partly follows work by Hu Chirui 胡敕瑞 (2005), based upon internal evidence such as the use of the first-person pronoun 吾, [佛]遊於, 是以, genitive 之, and 女子. Nattier notes that T605 shares a number of these unusual expressions with T792, and adds further features to the list: 佛說是已, and 比丘受教從佛而聽. She suggests further that these two texts could usefully be compared with T27 and T604. |
53-55 |
Nattier does not accept the attribution to Juqu Jingsheng. She calls the text an "archaic translation of unknown authorship". |
127 n. 42 |
|
|
Nattier notes that external evidence, dating back to Sengyou, would seem to make the ascription of T630 to Zhi Yao unproblematic. However, it features vocabulary which, if it were genuinely a Han text, would be unusual in having no successors. The text attracted considerable attention in the late fourth century, when it was used in the Feng fa yao of Xi Chao and the Zhao lun of Sengzhao. In the same period, it is also used as a source for Zhu Fonian's Chinese composition, T309. Thereafter, however, it largely disappears from view. Nishiwaki argued, on the basis of a manuscript fragment of a commentary, that the text must postdate *Mokṣala's T221, but have been produced before T223. Paleographic evidence seems to date the Turfan manuscript to the fourth century. These various indications, while circumstantial, may point to something more like a fourth century date for the text. Internal evidence suggests that the text may be a Chinese composition, for instance, a gloss on 一心 in terms of filial piety, and also breaking it down into 一 and 心 separately. It also contains elements, or groupings of elements, which would be unusual in an Indic text, such as various groupings mentioned among the audience of the sūtra; or the fact that the Buddha "straightens his robe" 整服 before he speaks, where such a gesture is usually used to show respect to a superior. The text also includes various items of terminology that may be traceable to earlier Chinese translation texts. |
96-102 |
|
Nattier notes that T132 is "noteworthy" for "its pervasive emphasis on social service". She also notes "repeated references to 'noxious qi' 毒氣 that causes illness to spread". She suggests, "It may well be worth considering the possibility that part of this material might have been composed in China," but notes, "Neither Dao'an nor Sengyou expressed any skepticism, however, concerning the authenticity of the text." She also notes that the text includes mention of 魂 and the phrase 神不滅. |
132 |
|
Nattier does not regard the ascription of T511 to Zhi Qian as reliable. Nattier notes that it is cited in T1694, and so probably dates to the second to early third century. Dao'an includes it in his list of anonymous scriptures. Dao'an gives a note that the text is from the Madhyamāgama, and Nattier notes that it corresponds in content to T26(162). She also notes a parallel in Pāli, MN 140, Dhātuvibhaṅga-sutta. This enables her to identify the name of a protagonist, a king of Takṣila 德差伊羅 named 弗迦沙, with the Pāli Pukkasāti/Pukkusāti. She also notes that T511 contains material not paralleled in the Pāli sutta, but found in Buddhaghosa's commentary. |
165 with n. 6 |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T607. [T607 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
Nattier gives several reasons that she believes the ascription of this "memorandum on a variorum edition of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra" to Zhi Mindu may be open to question. (1) Sengyuou's typical verbs for authorship are missing from the byline. (2) The heading also mentions a commentary by Xie Fu 三經謝敷合注, "which seems out of place". (3) This document refers to Zhi Qian as Zhi Yue, whereas Zhi Mindu's preface to his variorum version of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa refers to him as Zhi Gongming. (4) The text uses the geographical term Zhongguo 中國, which otherwise never appears in CSZJJ, except in passages written by Sengyou himself. |
123 n. 34 |
|
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T210. [T210 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T225. [T225 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] |
164 n. 3 |
|
Nattier (2008): 109-110, following Zacchetti (2004): 210-212, says that though Sengyou ascribes this text to Zhi Qian, it is probably older (Han). In Sengyou's biographical section and Daoan, Zhi Qian is referred to as an author of a commentary on this text, not its translator. Zacchetti, Stefano. "Teaching Buddhism in Han China: A Study of the Ahan koujie shi'er yinyuan jing T 1508 Attributed to An Shigao." Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 7 (2004): 197-224. |
109-110 |
|
Nattier notes that T152(89) and T198(5) are "exact parallel[s]". "Since the story in question contains six-character verse, which is ubiquitous in T198 but otherwise unknown in T152, it seems virtually certain that Kang Senghui borrowed the passage from Zhi Qian, and not vice versa." |
134 |
|
Jan Nattier notes that arguments have been made for the attribution of T5 to Zhi Qian 支謙 (fl. 223–253) (by Iwamatsu, Park), but she argues against this attribution. She also describes complexities in the relations between T5 and T6, which are parallel texts, and "share a substantial amount of unusual vocabulary" and "to have been based on a similar (though not identical) Indian original". She writes, "The language of T6 is much more elegant in style than that of T5; thus it seems unlikely, from a literary perspective, that T5 could be a revision of T6. On the other hand, T5 contains a considerable amount of material that has no parallel in T6, which raises questions about whether T6 as we have it could really be a revision of T5 in its present form. A third possibility is that both T5 and T6 might both (sic) be descendants (i.e. revisions) of a common, but now lost, original. In any case, it is clear that the two texts are connected in some way." Pointing out similarities between T5 and T145, Nattier also argues that it is likely that both texts were produced in the Wu kingdom in the third century CE. She concludes that "the two texts are connected in some way," though the exact nature of that relationship is difficult to determine. |
126 n. 39, 127–128 |