Source: Iwamatsu 1976b

In an earlier study (1976a), Iwamatsu points out that the information in the catalogues about translations of the so-called “small” 小本 Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is extraordinarily confused. This confusion extends not only to the ascriptions of various texts, but also to considerable variation in titles and reported content. Between them, the different catalogues report a total of seven such texts by different translators, though no single catalogue reports all the different versions. Only four texts are now extant: 佛般泥洹經 T5, ascribed in the Taishō to Bai Fazu 白法祖; 般泥洹經 T6, which the Taishō treats as anonymous; 大般涅槃經 T7, ascribed to Faxian 法顯; and 方等般泥洹經 T378, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. (Iwamatsu notes that T378 is fundamentally different in content to the other three texts; see below.) In addition, the catalogues ascribe similar titles to *Lokakṣema, Faxian 法賢, and Zhi Qian. Iwamatsu states that no scholars have ever studied these supposedly lost texts, or ascriptions of a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to these figures, as a problem in its own right. The conclusion of Iwamatsu’s first study is that there only ever existed four such texts, and the apparent multiplication of texts stems from errors in LDSBJ; the supposedly separate text ascribed to Faxian 法賢 was none other than a ghost text created by an erroneous report about T7, and the text ascribed to Zhi Qian was a ghost created by erroneous information about T378.

In this follow-up study (1976b), Iwamatsu adds to the mix reports about ascriptions of similar titles to two other figures: An Faqin 安法欽 and Guṇabhadra. He states that a text of only one juan was ascribed to Guṇabhadra down to KYL, when Zhisheng found another juan, but judged on the basis of the style that the text was in fact by Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa, and therefore reascribed it to the E. Jin as an anonymous text (the resulting text is our current T6).

[NOTE: Zhisheng's remark here reads: 般泥洹經一卷. 或無般字孝建元年於辛寺譯見道慧宋齊錄今尋此單卷泥洹上下文句非是跋陀所翻似是謙護等譯今尋得二卷且附東晉錄中, T2154 (LV) 530a3-5. It seems to me ambiguous whether he is declaring that his search turned up a "second fascicle", or an entire version "in two fascicles". --- MR]

Iwamatsu aims to resolve the problem of ascriptions of all four of our extant texts, primarily on the basis of a reconsideration of external evidence. He first eliminates An Faqin from consideration, saying that Faqin himself never appears in any source until LDSBJ, i.e. he may even be a “ghost translator”, and moreover that he also never appears in any other Sui catalogue. He also eliminates Bo Fazu, saying that in CSZJJ, he is ascribed with only one text, which is moreover said to have been lost; in LDSBJ, however, he is suddenly ascribed with 23 works. This suggests that all our received ascriptions to Fazu, too, are based upon the unreliable testimony of LDSBJ.

Iwamatsu doubts further if Faxian 法顯 ever translated such a text, because CSZJJ’s list of texts collected by Faxian in India includes nothing of the sort. He suggests that the idea that Faxian translated a “smaller” Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra is based upon a misreading of the following line in Faxian’s travelogue: 又得一卷方等般泥洹經, T2085 (LI) 864b27; for Iwamatsu, this report probably refers only to the (“Mahāyāna”) *Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, which Faxian famously brought back to China and translated with Buddhabhadra and Baoyun (in six juan), so that 卷 is merely being used as a counter for the text as a whole, but he suggests that someone may have read it as listing two texts in succession, thus: 又得(1)一卷、(2)方等　般泥洹經...

Having thus eliminated Faxian as a candidate as well, Iwamatsu then examines a problem with the “Zhi Qian” and “Dharmarakṣa” versions. A note by Dao’an cited in CSZJJ says that both texts were equivalent to a text in the Dīrghāgama, but in fact, the content of T378, at least, does not match anything in the Dīrghāgama (unlike T5, T6 and T7, which all basically match DĀ 2遊行經 = DN 16). He points out that in fact, Dao’an died too early to know DĀ (through the Chinese translation D1) in any detail, and that most other CSZJJ notes from Dao’an equating texts to DĀ in fact turn out on examination to refer to MĀ. Iwamatsu therefore suggests that this was the case for T378 as well, and that the note should have said 中阿含, but some error crept in. MĀ does include a text with the name “Nirvāṇa sūtra” 涅槃經 (MĀ 55), but it differs completely in content from T378; but he suggests that perhaps Dao’an’s note referred to some perceived parallel between the content of T378 and the “alternate” (now lost) MĀ translated by Dharmanandin, which he says was quite different in content from the extant MĀ T26.

Having thus narrowed the field down to four candidates, Iwamatsu concludes rather hastily by claiming that on the basis of (unspecified) features of translation style and phraseology, the actual attributions for these texts should be: T5 should be ascribed to Zhi Qian; T6 to Dharmarakṣa; T7 to Guṇabhadra, and T378 should be regarded as an anonymous text of the Western Jin. He says further that these re-ascriptions for T5 and T7 are “unproblematic”, but that T6 is atypical in style for Dharmarakṣa. Iwamatsu proposes that this fact can be explained by the assumption that it was an early work, and that Dharmarakṣa also referred to “Zhi Qian’s” text as he worked and was influenced by it.

Edit

In an earlier study (1976a), Iwamatsu points out that the information in the catalogues about translations of the so-called “small” 小本 Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is extraordinarily confused. This confusion extends not only to the ascriptions of various texts, but also to considerable variation in titles and reported content. Between them, the different catalogues report a total of seven such texts by different translators, though no single catalogue reports all the different versions. Only four texts are now extant: 佛般泥洹經 T5, ascribed in the Taishō to Bo Fazu 白法祖; 般泥洹經 T6, which the Taishō treats as anonymous; 大般涅槃經 T7, ascribed to Faxian 法顯; and 方等般泥洹經 T378, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. (Iwamatsu notes that T378 is fundamentally different in content to the other three texts; see below.) In addition, the catalogues ascribe similar titles to *Lokakṣema, Faxian 法賢, and Zhi Qian. Iwamatsu states that no scholars have ever studied these supposedly lost texts, or ascriptions of a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to these figures, as a problem in its own right. The conclusion of Iwamatsu’s first study is that there only ever existed four such texts, and the apparent multiplication of texts stems from errors in LDSBJ; the supposedly separate text ascribed to Faxian 法賢 was none other than a ghost text created by an erroneous report about T7, and the text ascribed to Zhi Qian was a ghost created by erroneous information about T378.

In this follow-up study (1976b), Iwamatsu adds to the mix reports about ascriptions of similar titles to two other figures: An Faqin 安法欽 and Guṇabhadra. He states that a text of only one juan was ascribed to Guṇabhadra down to KYL, when Zhisheng found another juan, but judged on the basis of the style that the text was in fact by Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa, and therefore reascribed it to the E. Jin as an anonymous text (the resulting text is our current T6).

Iwamatsu aims to resolve the problem of ascriptions of all four of our extant texts, primarily on the basis of a reconsideration of external evidence. He first eliminates An Faqin from consideration, saying that Faqin himself never appears in any source until LDSBJ, i.e. he may even be a “ghost translator”, and moreover that he also never appears in any other Sui catalogue. He also eliminates Bo Fazu, saying that in CSZJJ, he is ascribed with only one text, which is moreover said to have been lost; in LDSBJ, however, he is suddenly ascribed with 23 works. This suggests that all our received ascriptions to Fazu, too, are based upon the unreliable testimony of LDSBJ.

Iwamatsu doubts further if Faxian 法顯 ever translated such a text, because CSZJJ’s list of texts collected by Faxian in India includes nothing of the sort. He suggests that the idea that Faxian translated a “smaller” Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra is based upon a misreading of the following line in Faxian’s travelogue: 又得一卷方等般泥洹經, T2085 (LI) 864b27; for Iwamatsu, this report probably refers only to the (“Mahāyāna”) *Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, which Faxian famously brought back to China and translated with Buddhabhadra and Baoyun (in six juan), so that 卷 is merely being used as a counter for the text as a whole, but he suggests that someone may have read it as listing two texts in succession, thus: 又得(1)一卷、(2)方等　般泥洹經...
Having thus eliminated Faxian as a candidate as well, Iwamatsu then examines a problem with the “Zhi Qian” and “Dharmarakṣa” versions. A note by Dao’an cited in CSZJJ says that both texts were equivalent to a text in the Dīrghāgama, but in fact, the content of T378, at least, does not match anything in the Dīrghāgama (unlike T5, T6 and T7, which all basically match DĀ 2遊行經 = DN 16). He points out that in fact, Dao’an died too early to know DĀ (through the Chinese translation D1) in any detail, and that most other CSZJJ notes from Dao’an equating texts to DĀ in fact turn out on examination to refer to MĀ. Iwamatsu therefore suggests that this was the case for T378 as well, and that the note should have said 中阿含, but some error crept in. MĀ does include a text with the name “Nirvāṇa sūtra” 涅槃經 (MĀ 55), but it differs completely in content from T378; but he suggests that perhaps Dao’an’s note referred to some perceived parallel between the content of T378 and the “alternate” (now lost) MĀ translated by Dharmanandin, which he says was quite different in content from the extant MĀ T26.

Having thus narrowed the field down to four candidates, Iwamatsu concludes rather hastily by claiming that on the basis of (unspecified) features of translation style and phraseology, the actual attributions for these texts should be: T5 should be ascribed to Zhi Qian; T6 to Dharmarakṣa; T7 to Guṇabhadra, and T378 should be regarded as an anonymous text of the Western Jin. He says further that these re-ascriptions for T5 and T7 are “unproblematic”, but that T6 is atypical in style for Dharmarakṣa. Iwamatsu proposes that this fact can be explained by the assumption that it was an early work, and that Dharmarakṣa also referred to “Zhi Qian’s” text as he worked and was influenced by it.

Edit

In an earlier study (1976a), Iwamatsu points out that the information in the catalogues about translations of the so-called “small” 小本 Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is extraordinarily confused. This confusion extends not only to the ascriptions of various texts, but also to considerable variation in titles and reported content. Between them, the different catalogues report a total of seven such texts by different translators, though no single catalogue reports all the different versions. Only four texts are now extant: 佛般泥洹經 T5, ascribed in the Taishō to Bo Fazu白法祖; 般泥洹經 T6, which the Taishō treats as anonymous; 大般涅槃經 T7, ascribed to Faxian法顯; and 方等般泥洹經 T378, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. (Iwamatsu notes that T378 is fundamentally different in content to the other three texts; see below.) In addition, the catalogues ascribe similar titles to *Lokakṣema, Faxian 法賢, and Zhi Qian. Iwamatsu states that no scholars have ever studied these supposedly lost texts, or ascriptions of a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to these figures, as a problem in its own right. The conclusion of Iwamatsu’s first study is that there only ever existed four such texts, and the apparent multiplication of texts stems from errors in LDSBJ; the supposedly separate text ascribed to Faxian 法賢 was none other than a ghost text created by an erroneous report about T7, and the text ascribed to Zhi Qian was a ghost created by erroneous information about T378.

In this follow-up study (1976b), Iwamatsu adds to the mix reports about ascriptions of similar titles to two other figures: An Faqin安法欽 and Guṇabhadra. He states that a text of only one juan was ascribed to Guṇabhadra down to KYL, when Zhisheng found another juan, but judged on the basis of the style that the text was in fact by Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa, and therefore reascribed it to the E. Jin as an anonymous text (the resulting text is our current T6).

Iwamatsu aims to resolve the problem of ascriptions of all four of our extant texts, primarily on the basis of a reconsideration of external evidence. He first eliminates An Faqin from consideration, saying that Faqin himself never appears in any source until LDSBJ, i.e. he may even be a “ghost translator”, and moreover that he also never appears in any other Sui catalogue. He also eliminates Bo Fazu, saying that in CSZJJ, he is ascribed with only one text, which is moreover said to have been lost; in LDSBJ, however, he is suddenly ascribed with 23 works. This suggests that all our received ascriptions to Fazu, too, are based upon the unreliable testimony of LDSBJ.

Iwamatsu doubts further if Faxian 法顯 ever translated such a text, because CSZJJ’s list of texts collected by Faxian in India includes nothing of the sort. He suggests that the idea that Faxian translated a “smaller” Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra is based upon a misreading of the following line in Faxian’s travelogue: 又得一卷方等般泥洹經, T2085 (LI) 864b27; for Iwamatsu, this report probably refers only to the (“Mahāyāna”) *Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, which Faxian famously brought back to China and translated with Buddhabhadra and Baoyun (in six juan), so that 卷 is merely being used as a counter for the text as a whole, but he suggests that someone may have read it as listing two texts in succession, thus: 又得(1)一卷、(2)方等　般泥洹經...
Having thus eliminated Faxian as a candidate as well, Iwamatsu then examines a problem with the “Zhi Qian” and “Dharmarakṣa” versions. A note by Dao’an cited in CSZJJ says that both texts were equivalent to a text in the Dīrghāgama, but in fact, the content of T378, at least, does not match anything in the Dīrghāgama (unlike T5, T6 and T7, which all basically match DĀ 2遊行經 = DN 16). He points out that in fact, Dao’an died too early to know DĀ (through the Chinese translation D1) in any detail, and that most other CSZJJ notes from Dao’an equating texts to DĀ in fact turn out on examination to refer to MĀ. Iwamatsu therefore suggests that this was the case for T378 as well, and that the note should have said 中阿含, but some error crept in. MĀ does include a text with the name “Nirvāṇa sūtra” 涅槃經 (MĀ 55), but it differs completely in content from T378; but he suggests that perhaps Dao’an’s note referred to some perceived parallel between the content of T378 and the “alternate” (now lost) MĀ translated by Dharmanandin, which he says was quite different in content from the extant MĀ T26.

Having thus narrowed the field down to four candidates, Iwamatsu concludes rather hastily by claiming that on the basis of (unspecified) features of translation style and phraseology, the actual attributions for these texts should be: T5 should be ascribed to Zhi Qian; T6 to Dharmarakṣa; T7 to Guṇabhadra, and T378 should be regarded as an anonymous text of the Western Jin. He says further that these re-ascriptions for T5 and T7 are “unproblematic”, but that T6 is atypical in style for Dharmarakṣa. Iwamatsu proposes that this fact can be explained by the assumption that it was an early work, and that Dharmarakṣa also referred to “Zhi Qian’s” text as he worked and was influenced by it.

Edit