Source: Sakaino 1935

Sakaino maintains that KYL 開元釋敎錄 is highly unreliable in listing a “new Sukhāvatīvyha” 新無量壽經 ascribed to *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多, since it is unlikely that even Fei Changfang, who was active nearly one hundred fifty years after *Dharmamitra, did not know of such a text at all, if it existed, and yet was then known to Zhisheng when he compiled KYL around two hundred fifty-sixty years after *Dharmamitra. Sakaino mentions that Zhisheng cites the Zhenji si catalogue 眞寂寺錄 as the source in listing the 新無量壽經. No details are known about this catalogue, but Sakaino conjectures that it probably was a catalogue compiled after the time of LDSBJ and possessed by the temple.

Edit

185

A Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 in 2 juan was ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. According to Sakaino, Dharmarakṣa translated this scripture twice. The first translation was the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 in 2 juan, recorded as missing. Sakaino quotes a comment from CSZJJ on this text: 安公云更出首楞嚴元康元年四月九日出 T2145 (LV) 9a1. Sakaino also introduces the view of Zhisheng, in KYL, that the Yongfu ding jing and the Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 were actually the same text. However, Sakaino claims that it is not reasonable to reject the existence of two translations as recorded by Dao’an. It could happen, Sakaino adds, that the same person translated one scripture twice, if he obtained a better version of the original after translating the first version.

Edit

897-898

Sakaino argues that the so-called Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄 reported by Fei Changfang was actually a catalogue of the works of Dharmarakṣa 竺法護錄 compiled by Nie Daozhen. Fei Changfang mistakenly understood that a “Nie Daozhen catalogue” separate from the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” existed, and then fabricated fifty-four entries for which he cited the authority of this supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, assuming that Nie Daozhen must have translated scriptures if there was a catalogue of his works. However, Sakaino claims that in fact, Nie probably did not translate any scriptures at all, as neither Dao’an or Sengyou recorded any of his works.

Perversely enough, further, the source that Fei actually cites as the source for these fifty-four fabricated entries is the Bie lu 別錄, not the supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, a fact which Sakaino claims shows that neither the Nie Daozhen catalogue n or the Bie lu as cited by Fei are at all reliable. Sakaino states that the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” was probably, in fact, a simple list made by Nie Daozhen to record the works of his master Dharmarakṣa.

[This suggestion might affect our view of the reliability not only of LDSBJ itself, and these various catalogues upon which it in these cases claims to base its ascriptions, but also the reliability of all ascriptions to Nie Daozhen still carried in T, viz., T188, T282, T463, T483 and T1502, and this record therefore lists all of those texts --- MR.]

Edit

329-331

Sakaino points out that the Pu chao jing 普超經 (cf. T627) was listed by Sengyou as two different texts (普超經 and 更出阿闍世王經, cf. T626). KYL corrected this mistake.

Edit

194

Sakaino claims that the Jiu lu 舊錄, Bie lu 別錄, and Gu lu 古錄 as they are cited in LDSBJ and CSZJJ are unreliable. For example, CSZJJ cites the Jiu lu in listing the Sishi´er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784.

LDSBJ cites the Jiu lu for some scriptures for which CSZJJ did not cite it, e.g., four titles ascribed to Zhi Qian; the *Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi-sutra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜; and so on. The latest figure among those for which the Jiu lu is cited in LDSBJ is Tanwulan 曇無蘭. It is not known whether the Jiu lu (“old catalogue/s”) was a single catalogue, or whether it is a generic term referring to different catalogues. It is plausible in any case that the Jiu lu was/were compiled after Dao’an.

According to Sakaino, the Bie lu is cited in CSZJJ for the following entries: some of *Lokakṣema’s works, including the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā 伅眞陀羅經 and the Guangming sanmei jing 光明三昧經; once in the section on Bo Yan 白延; four times in the section on Zhi Qian; once in the section on Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭; and twice in the section on *Dharmakṣema. Sakaino points out that LDSBJ cites the Bie lu for many entries in addition to those that were already included in CSZJJ, many of them ascriptions that were newly introduced by Fei. Quite a few of these titles were actually taken from lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ (a pattern Sakaino also observes elsewhere in his monograph). Thus, Sakaino claims that probably Fei used just the name Bie lu for entries he fabricated without any factual basis. Fei lists a Zhongjing bie lu 衆經別錄 as one of the catalogues he directly consulted, but Sakaino does not think this Zhongjing bie lu 衆經別錄 could have been the same Bie lu 別録 that Fei cites throughout LDSBJ. Sakaino also mentions that there is still a possibility that a real source/s answering to the label "Bie lu" actually existed, but even if it did, it was not a proper catalogue, but just a term used to refer to miscellaneous records. For example, Fei cites a (or several?) Bie za lu 別雜錄 in his description of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, and there, this term apparently refers to miscellaneous non-catalogue materials. Sakaino asserts that, in any case, the source/s cited as Bie lu [in LDSBJ] is/are even more unreliable than the Jiu lu.

Sakaino conjectures that the Gu lu was compiled well after Dao’an’s time. CSZJJ apparently cites it in two places: in a note for the Fanzhi Shesun jing 梵志闍孫經 (古錄云梵志闍遜經), and in a note for the Pin nü ting jing she nie mingzhong jing 貧女聽經蛇齧命終經 in the group of unseen missing scriptures (古錄貧女聽經蛇齧命終生天經). LDSBJ cites the Gu lu three times, latest for a work ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖. This Gu lu, as it includes such a late work, must be different from the Gu lu listed at the end of LDSBJ.

Edit

332-336

LDSBJ newly ascribes the Fu fazang zhuan 付法藏傳 (cf. T2058) and the Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 (cf. X15) to Baoyun 寶雲. Sakaino claims that both are highly dubious. Both titles are also listed as the works of Tanyao 曇曜 in LDSBJ, which, Sakaino claims, suggests that there was some confusion in recording those titles. The title Jing du sanmei jing appears in the “recompiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 of CSZJJ with the alternate title Jing du jing 淨度經. LDSBJ lists three translations of the 淨度三昧經: in addition to that ascribed to Baoyun, one ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴, and another ascribed to Tanyao 曇曜. LDSBJ lists also three translations of the Fu fazang zhuan: in addition to that ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲, one ascribed to Tanyao 曇曜, and another ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜. Sakaino lists several external reasons to conclude that it is hard to believe any of those ascriptions.

Edit

543-545

Edit

87

Sakaino claims that the “Sūtra of Humane Kings” 仁王般若經 ascribed to Paramārtha probably did not exist, suspecting that no Indic original text 梵本 ever existed. He therefore argues that the record about this text in LDSBJ is not reliable. He also mentions the oddity that, in LDSBJ, the year of translation of the sutra itself, Chengsheng 承聖 3, is five years before the supposed production year of a commentary on the same text 仁王般若經疏, Taiqing 太清 3.

Edit

708-710

Sakaino claims that the preface of T1505 is written clearly by Dao’an, although CSZJJ records it as the author unknown 未詳作者. Sakaino quotes two passages from the preface, T2145 (LV) 64c4-9 and 64c13-15. Sakaino presents the latter passage as evidence for the authorship of Dao’an, stating that the passage indicates that Dao’an paid homage to the grave of 佛圖澄 and translated the text at that time while staying at 鄴寺:

余以壬午之歲八月。東省先師寺廟。於鄴寺令鳩摩羅佛提執[＊]胡[18]本。佛念佛護為譯。僧導曇究僧叡筆受。至冬十一月乃訖。

Sakaino writes: とあるのは、道安が佛圖澄の墓に詣し、其の時鄴寺の滞在中譯出せしものなることを語って居るのである (768).

Edit

767-768

Sakaino states that the Dīrghāgama 長阿含經 T1 , the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Si fen lü) 四分律 T1428, and the Si fen jie ben 四分戒本 T1429 are ascribed to Buddhayaśas. Sakaino quotes the following passage from CSZJJ, claiming that the passage suggests that the actual translator (oral interpreter) 傳譯 was Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, and the amanuensis 筆受 was Daohan 道含 (即以弘始十二年。譯出為四十卷。并出長阿含經。減百萬言。涼州沙門竺佛念譯為秦言。道含執筆。至十五年解坐。興嚫耶舍布絹萬疋。不受。佛念道含布絹各千疋。名德沙門五百人皆重嚫施; T2145 (LV) 102c12-17). [CBETA] Sakaino adds that GSZ also suggests the same detail [viz., 傳譯 and 筆受, apparently --- AI] of the attributions of Buddhayaśas’s translations.

Edit

401

Sakaino quotes a passage from KYL that states that the two-juan *Nirvāṇa-sūtra 泥洹經 [般泥洹經 T6?, anon. E. Jin], newly rediscovered in Zhisheng´s time, should be the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra 泥洹經 in one juan ascribed to Guṇabhadra, but it does not appear to be Guṇabhadra’s work, so that Zhisheng therefore classifies it as anonymous. Sakaino maintains that this two-juan version is actually Zhi Qian’s translation, and pointing out the fact that Dao’an ascribes the 泥洹經 [T6?] to Zhi Qian while there is no anonymous 泥洹經 listed in Dao’an or Sengyou. Sakaino also suggests in passing that the one-juan 泥洹經 ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ should be a result of a confusion with a work by *Lokakṣema.

Edit

633

Sakaino claims that the ascription of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 (3 juan) T7 to Faxian 法顯 is a crude mistake on the part of Zhisheng. It is widely accepted that Faxian translated the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvaṇa-mahāsūtra 大般泥洹經 T376 and a Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等泥洹經 (*Vaipulya-nirvāṇa-sūtra). Zhisheng maintains, according to Sakaino without any basis, that T7 (3 juan) is to be identified with the same Fangdeng nihuan jing, claiming that some say that this title is in 3 juan, and that the Fangdeng (*vaipulya/vaitulya) 方等 in the title should be removed, as it should have been added to the title of the Mahāyāna text, T376, instead. Sakaino conjectures that Zhisheng made these claims because he wondered why Faxian had translated two Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa Sūtras, and because T7 was not given an ascription in catalogues—indeed, sometimes not even listed–so that it could actually have been the Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等泥洹經 (565-566).

Sakaino maintains further that T7 is likely to be Guṇabhadra’s work. His reasons to claiming so include the fact that Faxian 法顯 never used the term niepan 涅槃 for nirvaṇa in his works, while Guṇabhadra almost exclusively uses it. Sakaino states that CSZJJ made this mistake for some reason, and the wrong ascription was accepted by later catalogues. However, Sakaino accepts that it is difficult to be sure that T7 is Guṇabhadra’s work, since other works of Guṇabhadra are very different from T7 in character, and the vocabulary of Guṇabhadra’s Saṃyutkāgama 雜阿含經 T99 contains many cases in which different translation words are given for one original word, and thus does not give decisive evidence. However, Sakaino mentions a few terms that strongly indicate that the text is most likely Guṇabhadra’s translation, such as 迦比羅斾兜 for Kapilavastu (迦毘羅斾兜 T189, v.l. 迦比羅旆兜, 明藏等) (566-569).

Edit

565-569

Sakaino proposes that An Faxian 安法賢, like An Faqin 安法欽, probably in fact never existed, but rather, was a ghost created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shengjian 聖堅. Unsurprisingly, then, he rejects all ascriptions to An Faxian. According to Sakaino, two titles, the 羅摩迦經 (3 juan) (cf. T294) and the Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 (2 juan) (cf. T7?), are ascribed to An Faxian 安法賢 in LDSBJ. Sakaino points out that the Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 could not have been translated in the Wei 魏 period, since the word niepan 涅槃 was not in use then.

Edit

92, 95-98

The last part of the Fo guo ji 佛國記 contains a sentence reading 夏坐訖法顯離諸師久欲趣長安。但所營事重。遂便南下向都。就禪師出經律藏; T2085 (LI) 866b15-17. Sakaino reads this sentence to mean that after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends again, but decided to go to Jiankang 建康 instead because Buddhabhadra, a prominent translator of scriptures, was there, and it was more important to contribute to the diffusion of the Dharma. Sakaino infers that the translation work of the texts ascribed to Faxian was actually done by Buddhabhadra, and Faxian’s role in translating was rather small. Those texts were ascribed/co-ascribed to Faxian out of respect to him as the one who brought the original to China. Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of texts related to Faxian. For example, T1425 (ascribed today to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (following CSZJJ’s general policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work). On the other hand, LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra, although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯.

Edit

534-535

Sakaino states that the ascription of the Shijialuoyue liu fang li jing 尸迦羅越六方禮經 (T16 *Siṅgāla-sūtra) to An Shigao is dubious. The content of this scripture is the same as that of the Shan sheng jing 善生經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含經 T26(135).

Edit

848

Sakaino maintains that the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 [T20 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is indeed a translation by Zhi Qian, since its terminology includes words specific to him, such as理家 for kulapati (for which 居士 is more common), 溝港, and 頻來.

Edit

130-131

As many as 70 titles newly ascribed to Zhi Qian by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ are found in the catalogues of lost scriptures in CSZJJ. In particular, 56 titles of the 70 feature in the “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, which was newly compiled by Sengyou himself. This strongly suggests that Fei arbitrarily assigned ascriptions to a large portion of the scriptures ascribed to Zhi Qian by taking titles in groups from Sengyou’s list.

Sakaino suggests that it is “so peculiar as to defy comprehension” (實に考えられない不思議のこと) that Sengyou’s list contains more than 860 anonymous scriptures in all, but Fei appears, apparently by sheer happenstance, to have found 14 titles translated by Zhi Qian concentrated in single stretch of only 26 titles (T2145 [LV] 28c3-28). Elsewhere (80-86), Sakaino argues further that Sengyou’s list is in fact organised by topic [it certainly could not be organised by translator, since he regards the texts it contains as anonymous], which makes this clustering of supposed Zhi Qian texts all the stranger. This is part of a broader pattern that Sakaino observes elsewhere in his book, whereby Fei repeatedly assigns new ascriptions holus-bolus, associating groups of texts from Sengyou’s list with the same purported translator. Sakaino does suggest that Fei seems to have referred occasionally to other sources in assigning some of these ascriptions to Zhi Qian, and might even have examined the content of a few texts himself. Sakaino also points out that if CSZJJ gives an alternative title, Fei uses that title, e.g., the 自守亦不自守經 in CSZJJ is listed as不自守意經 in LDSBJ (143-144).

Sakaino gives further arguments about some particular scriptures.

6 scriptures which did not appear in Dao’an, but then do appear in CSZJJ with a note that they are listed in the bei lu 別錄 (首楞嚴, 龍施女, 法鏡, 鹿子, 十二門大方等, and 頼吒和羅), are probably not to be regarded as Zhi Qian’s works. The two texts extant among those six (the *Nāgadatta-sūtra 龍施女 T557, and the *Rāṣṭrapāla-sūtra 賴吒和羅 T68), as discussed earlier (128, 134-135), should therefore not be ascribed to Zhi Qian.

21 scriptures that apparently were taken from sources other than CSZJJ are probably also not Zhi Qian’s works. However, Sakaino does except the 貝多樹經 T713 (*Nidāna-sūtra, Nagaropama-sūtra), the ascription of which to Zhi Qian he says should be accepted.

Edit

141-145

Sakaino argues that many of our extant ascriptions to Tanwulan were added by LDSBJ, and are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single translator. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Sakaino also studies this pattern in application to other translators (or supposed translators) elsewhere in his work; see esp. 80-86 for a general analysis of the overall pattern. Tanwulan is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure, and in this case, it leads to the especially misleading consequence that Tanwulan looks as if he was a pioneer in the systematic introduction of proto-Tantra into China, because Fei Changfang chose to assign to him portions of Sengyou's lists that had tantric-sounding topics. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Sakaino points out that in CSZJJ, by contrast, only two works are ascribed to Tanwulan: the 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR] and the 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR], for which the ascription is carried in CSZJJ.

Sakaino states that LDSBJ only presents (supposed) sources for its ascriptions to Tanwulan in six cases. He discusses these sources for these cases. Most of the texts in question are not extant. Sakaino surmisaes that among these six texts, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR”] and the Xian jie qian Fo ming jing 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR] are correctly ascribed to Tanwulan, as source for them is CSZJJ, based on Dao’an.

Edit

211-220

Sakaino states that some terms in the Qi zhi jing 七知經 T27 are almost identical with those used in the anonymous Nihuan jing 泥洹經 [般泥洹經 T6], such as 理家衆, and the names of the twelve classes of Buddhist scriptures 十二分教, viz., 文, 歌, 説, 頌, 譬喩, 本起記, 事解, 生傳, 廣博, 自然, 行, 章句. [Sakaino argues elsewhere in the same book (555-561) that T6, as well as the Nihuan jing 泥洹經 ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖 T5, should be reascribed to Zhi Qian, hence it is implied here that the ascription of T27 to Zhi Qian is correct].

Edit

131

Sakaino presents a list of 132 texts that LDSBJ newly ascribed to Faju, and points out that almost all of them (129 titles) were taken from the Sengyou’s “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 續 失譯錄 in CSZJJ (one was taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄). Sakaino also demonstrates that in assigning these new ascriptions, Fei arbitrarily took titles in groups, holus-bolus, from certain concentrated sections of Sengyou’s list. This is part of a broader pattern that Sakaino studies at several points in his book (see esp. 80-86), in which he identifies such group-wise reassignment of texts from Sengyou’s anonymous lists to single translators as characteristic of Fei Changfang’s working pattern. He points out that Sengyou’s list was organised by topic, as it could be inferred from the titles of texts, and not by translator (as it could not be, since Sengyou was explicitly stating that he did not know who the translator was); this makes it all the more improbable that texts due to single translators would be clustered in the list in the manner required by Fei’s re-ascriptions. In Faju’s case, for instance, this has the absurd consequence of making him appear to be a specialist in translations of texts that happen to have the word bhikṣu 比丘 in the title.

Edit

152-159

Sakaino states that the title Seng wang wu tianshi jing 僧王五天使經 [T2034 (XLIX) 93b10], ascribed to Huijian 慧簡 in LDSBJ, is a mistake for the title Yanluo wu tianshizhe jing 鹽王五天使者經 (cf. T43) in Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” [T2145 (LV) 28a6]. KYL corrected this title and listed it as the Yanluo wang wu tianshi jing. This is in fact one of a number of titles that Fei took from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures”, and ascribed to Huijian without any factual basis. The catalogue 同書 [KYL ---AI] says that this text is the same 同經 as the Tie cheng nili jing 鐵城泥犁經 (T42, ascribed to Tanwulan), but in CSZJJ those two titles are listed separately. Sakaino also states more generally that there is not a single reliable ascription to Huijian, because all were the fabrications of Fei Changfang.

Edit

548

Sakaino points out that in KYL, the anonymous Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 is regarded as an alternate title of the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 (T46 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜).

Edit

864

Sakaino argues that a number of new ascriptions to Dharmarakṣa added in LDSBJ are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single translator. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Sakaino also studies this pattern in application to other translators (or supposed translators) elsewhere in his work; see esp. 80-86 for a general analysis of the overall pattern. Dharmarakṣa is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa to which Sakaino's criticism here applies.

Edit

177-181

Sakaino lists 29 “Hīnayāna” titles ascribed to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ (list on 129-130), and claims that there is hardly any doubt that the titles ascribed to Zhi Qian already in CSZJJ are truly his work [by this Sakaino apparently refers to the first ten titles of the list, nine of which were included in Dao’an’s catalogue and the one in CSZJJ. Those ten are the titles associated with this entry --- AI]

Edit

129-135

Sakaino argues that the Bimoshi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 [T67 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is Dharmarakṣa’s translation, because it uses the term yuai 愚騃 instead of yuyi 愚疑.

Edit

133

Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 added in LDSBJ are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single or several translators. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Guṇabhadra is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Guṇabhadra to which Sakaino's criticism here applies.

According to Sakaino, Fei lists 78 titles as Guṇabhadra’s work (including the 13 already ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ). Among them, as many as 48 titles were actually taken from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄. (Sakaino claims that 13 titles ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ are the only reliable record of Guṇabhadra’s work.)

To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists the groups of titles from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” that were newly ascribed to Guṇabhadra by Fei without any solid grounds (635-637).

- 10 titles taken from the ones related to the disciples of the Buddha (佛往慰迦葉病經 1 juan, 摩訶迦葉度貧母經 1 juan, and others);
- 18 titles taken from the end of the section of scriptures featuring a person 一人事跡 and the beginning of the succeeding section of ones using metaphors 譬喩經 (殺龍濟一國人經 1 juan, 鸚鵡經 1 juan, and others);
- 6 titles taken from a section of Mahāyāna scriptures (無崖際持法門經 1 juan, 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 1 juan, and others);
- 12 titles (13 titles in LDSBJ since Fei counts the 十二頭陀經 twice as the 十二頭陀經 and the 十三頭陀經) in the section of scriptures with a number used in the title (三小劫經 1 juan, 三因縁經 1 juan, and others); and
- The 禪要呵欲經 1 juan in chan-related titles (the 菩薩呵欲經 in LDSBJ) (Sakaino also points out that the 淨度三昧經 was listed in the same catalogue as well.)

Thus, Sakaino demonstrates that Fei took titles from the certain groups in Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” and allocated them to Guṇabhadra (Sakaino implies clearly that the ascriptions of them to Guṇabhadra are baseless).

Edit

633-638

Sakaino states that important texts such as the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda-sūtra 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經 T353, the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670 and the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 T99 were in fact translated by Baoyun.

Edit

644

Sakaino states that the ascription of the Ba zhengdao jing 八正道經 (T112) to An Shigao is dubious. Although catalogues 諸經錄皆 record that T112 was taken from the 28th juan of the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含第二十八卷, Sakaino checked and found that T112 is different from that part of SĀ.

Edit

745

The *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125:

Sakaino argues that the ascription of the *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 to *Saṅghadeva 僧伽提婆 is incorrect. The situation of the translation of these texts that Sakaino extracts from the records can be summarized as follows:

The translation of the *Madhyamāgama and the *Ekottarikāgama was initially done by *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 worked as the “interpreter/oral translator” 傳語, and Dao’an 道安 and Fahe 法和 also helped the project. The translations contained numerous mistakes, because of the war that raged at that time. Later, Fahe and Saṅghadeva went to Luoyang 洛陽 and the *Ekottarikāgama was there revised by Saṅghadeva. T26 was retranslated from a different original text when Saṅghadeva went to south. This version is the *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 extant today. The chief translator 譯主 was *Saṅgharakṣa 僧伽羅叉, and *Saṅghadeva worked as the interpreter/oral translator 傳語. Little is known about this Saṅgharakṣa.

KYL is incorrect in recording that Saṅghadeva retranslated the*Ekottarikāgama as well as the Madhyamāgama. The *Ekottarikāgama was probably revised without discarding the initial translation of *Dharmanandi(n). Thus, the extant T125 should be ascribed to *Dharmanandi(n).

*Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提 probably also recited the text of the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含T125, judging from the fact that the first part 上部, comprising 26 juan, does not include any omissions or slips of memory 遺忘, and that, according to Dao’an, the verses are lost in the second part 下部 15 juan (230).

Edit

224-228, 230

Sakaino states that the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經, traditionally ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖 [T144], should be ascribed to *Lokakṣema instead, based on the vocabulary it uses (for example, 堕舎利 or 維舎利 for Vaiśāli).

Edit

114

Sakaino claims that the correct ascription of the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本縁經 [T153 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is unknown, because the terminology of the text is newer than that of Zhi Qian (e.g., 阿修羅 and 迦樓羅).

Edit

134

Sakaino maintains that the following 13 texts ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ were taken from a list of Dharmarakṣa’s works in CSZJJ, and calls the resulting information "erroneous and confused" 誤傳混同:

- 溫室洗浴眾僧經 [cf. T701 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 自誓三昧經 [cf. T622 ascribed to An Shigao, T623 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 迦葉結經 [cf. T2027 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 流離王經
- 如幻三昧經 [cf. T342 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 當來變滅經 [cf. T395 當來變經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 太子慕魄經 [cf. T167 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 四不可得經 [cf. T770 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 㮈[捺 in Sakaino]女祇域經 [cf. 㮈女祇域因縁經 T553 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 悔過法
- 舍利弗悔過經 [cf. T1492 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 住陰持入經 [cf. [陰持入經 [cf. T603 ascribed to An Shigao; 陰持入經註 T1694]
- 正齊經

Edit

71-75

CSZJJ ascribes only the *Ākāśagarbha-sūtra 虛空藏經 [not extant] to Shengjian 聖堅. Very few biographical details about Shengjian are known. LDSBJ ascribes fourteen texts to him, including the *Ākāśagarbha-sūtra. Sakaino rejects all of those ascriptions except the *Ākāśagarbha-sūtra, pointing out that nine of these ascriptions were simply imported holus-bolus from certain lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ. This is part of a larger pattern that Sakaino points out in Fei’s treatment of scriptures regarded as anonymous by Sengyou, which altogether affects a large number of ascriptions still carried in the present canon.

Edit

96-98

Sakaino states that Ratnamati 勒那摩提, Bodhiruci 菩提流支, and *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 were contemporaries in the Northern Dynasty period, and that it is recorded that Ratnamati started translating scriptures in China first, followed by Bodhiruci, and then by Buddhaśānta. However, Sakaino claims that Buddhaśānta probably came to China earlier than the other two. Sakaino gives the following support for this claim:

For translation works ascribed to these three figures, the tradition rarely reports an oral translator/interpreter 傳語, even though an interpreter should have been necessary. The preface of the Daśabhūmika 十地[經]論 T1522, however, states that Ratnamati and Bodhiruci were the translators 譯出, and Buddhaśānta was the oral translator/interpreter 傳語. From this, Sakaino infers that Buddhaśānta was the person who worked as the oral translator/interpreter 傳語 for the other two in other cases as well. Sakaino infers that Buddhaśānta must have arrived in China earlier than the other two, and thereby had longer to learn the language. This entry is associated with all texts ascribed to the trio, to which this suggestion might apply.

Edit

655-656

Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳 played the role of the “interpreter/oral translator” 傳語/度語 for the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ stating that Dao’an commended Kang Mengxiang’s translation of this text 亦是曇果與康孟詳。於迦維羅衛國齎梵本來。沙門竺大力。以建安二年三月。於雒陽譯。孟詳度為漢文。釋道安云。孟詳所翻弈弈流便足騰玄趣矣 (T2034 [XLIX], 54b14-17). However, Sakaino points out that Kang Mengxiang probably came to China before Tanguo 曇果, so the veracity of the above passage is suspect.

Edit

240

Sakaino argues that none of the extant ascriptions to Nie Daozhen are correct. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's "continued catalogue of anonymous scriptures" in CSZJJ, and assigns a group holus-bolus to a single translator. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Sakaino also studies this pattern in application to other supposed translators elsewhere in his work; see esp. 80-86 for a general analysis of the pattern. Nie Daozhen is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure; Fei's work makes it appear as if he was a specialist in translating texts that happen to have the word bodhisattva in the title. This entry lists all the extant texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen, to which Sakaino's criticism here applies.

Edit

200-206

Sakaino maintains that all of the ascriptions to *Lokakṣema newly given by LDSBJ (or KYL) are groundless [this entry is associated with the extant scriptures ascribed newly to *Lokakṣema by Fei, viz., the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 [T204] and the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量清淨平等覺經 [T361, 無量清淨經 in LDSBJ]. Sakaino adds that there should also exist other authentic translation works of *Lokakṣema, besides those ascribed to him in the Taishō, and that he will explain his view in each case of works suspected to be due to *Lokakṣema’s, as they arise in his discussions.

Edit

102-104

Sakaino states that Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 (1 juan) is listed in CSZJJ as one of Kumārajīva’s works (cf. T208). There also exist two other Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 in Sengyou's newly compiled catalogue of anonymous works 新集失譯錄, in 2 juan and 1 juan respectively. LDSBJ lists a Za piyu sanbai shou 譬喩三百首 in 25 juan, which it ascribes to Dharmarakṣa. Sakaino quotes Sengyou’s note on the anonymous Za piyu jing in 1 juan, and explains that Sengyou suspected that these various Za piyu jing might be offshoots 分支 of the same ~ sanbai shou 三百首 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. However, Sakaino points out that there might be some confusion in the record of these various Za piyu jing. The note on the one ascribed to Kumārajīva states that it was compiled by the Bhikṣu Daolüe 比丘道略所集 (cf. T207), but nothing much can be inferred further than that (349).

Edit

347-349

Sakaino points out the following about the ascription of the Dharmapada 法句經 T210: Athough CSZJJ records that the Dharmapada was translated by *Vighna 維祇難, Zhu Jiangyan 竺将炎, and Zhi Qian, the preface of the scripture does not mention Zhi Qian at all, but it does record that the text remained still very literal even after Zhu Jiangyan's revision of the first incomplete version by *Vighna and Zhu Jiangyan (149-150). On the other hand, CSZJJ also listed as an extant scripture another Fa ju jing 法句經 ascribed to Zhi Qian. Given this peculiarity, Sakaino argues that it was probably the case that Zhi Qian revised the text of the Dharmapada as first translated by *Vighna and Zhu Jiangyan, but that this revision was undertaken after the preface was written (which is why Zhi Qian is not mentioned in the preface). Sakaino further claims that the fact that the quality of T210 does not seem as poor as the preface suggests it should be, which also supports the possibility of Zhi Qian’s later revision (150).

Edit

149-151

According to Sakaino, the translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā 放光般若經 T221 (ascribed to *Mokṣala 無羅叉) was completed at 倉垣水南寺 in Yuankang 元康 1 (291), with *Mokṣala “handling the text” 執本 and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭 as the “oral translator/interpreter” 傳語. The original text was obtained and sent to China for translation by Zhu Zixing 朱子行. More than ten years after that translation, Zhu Shulan, together with Zhu Faji 竺法寂, copied and revised the text. Sakaino points out that although the name 無叉羅 has been written 無羅叉 since GSZ, 無叉羅 must be the correct transcription, as the name is a transliteration of *Mokṣala.

[Sakaino sounds very much like he bases his discussion on CSZJJ, but he does not explicitly say so --- AI.]

Edit

210-211

Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛 appears in CSZJJ and Dao’an, and is also called Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 in GSZ, and catalogues since LDSBJ. Sakaino states that *Lokakṣema worked on his Aṣṭasāhasrikā 道行般若經 T224 twice: once as the interpreter/oral translator 傳語, when Zhu Shuofo was responsible for “handling the text” 執本; subsequently, since the original text was then incomplete, *Lokakṣema worked on the text again when the complete version became available.

Edit

106-107, 306

The Wu pin 呉品 ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會 is the text also reported under the title Xiao pin 小品, which is actually a part of the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā 大明度經 T225 ascribed to Zhi Qian

Edit

237-239

Sakaino states that five titles are ascribed to Yan Fotiao in KYL:

the Rushou pusa jing 濡首菩薩經 (2 juan) (cf. T234);
the Da shanquan jing 大善權經 (2 juan) (cf. T345);
the Gu Weimojie jing 古維摩詰經 (2 juan) (cf. T474);
the Siyi jing 思意經 (1 juan);
and the Pusa nei xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經(1 juan) T778.

All of these ascriptions are taken from LDSBJ and highly unreliable.

Edit

91-92

The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra 薩曇分陀利經 [T265, currently listed as an anonymous text of the W. Jin] is most likely to be the work of *Lokakṣema. It was recorded by Dao’an in his catalogue of anonymous translations 失譯錄 as the 分陀利經 in 1 juan. Sakaino’s reasons for his claim are as follows: the translation was made in the Han period (since four glossess in the text use the expression 漢云, e.g., 漢云法華 to the transliteration word 薩曇分陀利); and the text contains terms specific to *Lokakṣema, e.g., 恒邊沙 (195-196). Sakaino points out that this scripture presents an early form of the Lotus 法華經 (detailed explanation on 196-198).

Edit

195-198

According to Sakaino, some catalogues state that Zhi Jiangliangjie 支彊梁接 translated the Fahua sanmei jing 法華三昧經 (cf. T269), but this ascription is groundless, as it was initially made by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ, and probably he took the title 正法華三昧經 (6 juan) in from the “catalogue of missing scriptures not yet seen” 闕經未見目錄 in CSZJJ. Sakaino claims that Sengyou may be right in stating that Zheng fahua sanmei jing 正法華三昧經 may actually be just an alternate title of the Zheng fahua jing (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka) 正法華經: 疑卽是正法華經之別名 (32a11).

Edit

160

According to Sakaino, Fei ascribes the Wuliang yi jing 無量義經 (cf. T276 ) to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, stating that he referred to the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄. As this title is not listed in CSZJJ, it may appear as if it this wais the first translation 第一譯, which existed before the extant version ascribed to *Dharmodgatayaśas 曇摩伽陀耶舎. However, Sakaino suggests that the entry is more likely to have been taken from some mistaken record tradition 誤傳 about the *Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經. Sakaino further suspects that the same text (無量壽經) may be listed by mistake in LDSBJ as three different texts in LDSBJ: the 無量壽經 1 juan, the 阿彌陀經 1 juan, and the 無量義經 1 juan.

Edit

635

Sakaino begins by noting that the original of the “Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra” 大品 =光讚經 T222 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa was probably brought to China from Khotan 于闐 by *Gītamitra(?) 祇多羅, a monk of Khotanese birth. The name 祇多羅 refers to the same person as 祇多蜜 recorded in the catalogues. However, Sakaino argues that *Gītamitra probably never translated any texts himself. This would imply that the ascriptions to *Gītamitra presently carried by T284 and T637 are erroneous. CSZJJ lists just one title, the Pu men jing 普門經 as the work of *Gitamitra (cf. T315 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa). LDSBJ, by contrast, ascribes 25 titles in 46 juan to him. KYL subsequently accepts most of these ascriptions, listing 13 titles in 45 juan as his work, excising only “offshoot” or “byproduct” scriptures 別生 from the ascriptions given in LDSBJ.

Sakaino argues that the ascriptions to *Gitamitra given by LDSBJ are highly likely to be fabrications on Fei's part. He shows that as many as 21 out of the 25 titles ascribed to *Gitamitra in LDSBJ overlap with scriptures ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in the same work. In Sakaino's view, this clearly indicates that the ascriptions to *Gitamitra were mistakenly mixed up 誤傳混雜 with those to Dharmarakṣa. Even the single title that CSZJJ also ascribed to *Gitamitra, viz., the 普門經, might be confused with Dharmarakṣa’s 普門經 in LDSBJ. Sakaino claims that it is virtually impossible that two scholars who were active in the same region in the same time translated so many of the same texts, and that here again, we see clearly the unreliability of LDSBJ.

Sakaino suggests that it is possible that *Gitamitra was somehow involved in Dharmarakṣa's translation project, but also, that this claim is impossible to prove, since Dharmarakṣa's biography does not mention him. Sakaino also gives further detailed discussion of the sources of confusion about some individual titles (no longer extant) on the LDSBJ list of *Gitamitra's works.

Edit

261-265

Sakaino argues that the Dengmu pusa suowen sanmei jing 等目菩薩所問三昧經 [T288] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is actually Zhi Qian’s work, since the text uses terms such as 質諒神 and 質諒帝.

Edit

135

Sakaino compares biographical records in LDSBJ for Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 and Dharmaruci 達摩流支 (who was ascribed with a 婆羅門天文 in twenty juan, apparently not extant) in XGSZ. Based on this comparison, Sakaino claims that probably the first Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 was created out of confusion about the second Dharmaruci 達摩流支, and hence it should be doubted that the Dharmaruci with the orthography 曇摩流支 translated any scriptures.

Edit

665

Sakaino thinks that Fei Changfang (in LDSBJ) tried to ascribe six titles to Bo Yan simply because GSZ wrote that Bo Yan produced six texts. The six titles Fei listed are: a *Sukhāvatīvzūha 無量清淨平等覺經, a second title also apparently corresponding to a Sukhāvatīvyūha 平等覺經, the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 (cf. T330), a Śūraṃgamasamadhi 首楞嚴經, the Xulai jing 須賴 (cf. T328, still ascribed to Bo Yan in T), and the Chu zai jing 除災患. Sakaino claims that even the ascriptions of the three titles (the Śūraṃgamasamadhi, the Xulai jing, and the Chu zai jing) given to Boyan already in CSZJJ are not reliable, as the Śūraṃgamasamādhi is double-listed, and none of the three were recorded by Dao’an. The first Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量清淨平等覺經 was first ascribed to Bo Yan in GSZ, and Fei added the 平等覺經 without any evidential basis , just in order to make the total number of Bo Yan’s translations six as GSZ says. Furthermore, Fei cites Zhu Daozu’s catalogue 竺道祖錄 for both of these supposed Sukhāvatīvyūha-sutras 無量清淨平等覺經 and the 平等覺經, which Sakaino describes as incredibly irresponsible (實に杜撰もまた極まれりと言ふの外はない). KYL was right in excising the 平等覺經, but still plainly wrong in putting a note to the 無量清淨平等覺經 stating that the text was recorded in CSZJJ as well.

Edit

270-272

Fajing ascribes T341 to Bodhiruci [written as 留支]. LDSBJ ascribes it to *Prajñāruci.

Edit

662-664

Fajing ascribes T357 to Bodhiruci.

Edit

663-664

Gyeongheung 憬興, in his 無量壽經述文讃, reascribes the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 (ascribed in the present canon to *Lokakṣema) to Bo Yan, but Sakaino judges that this ascription is baseless.

Edit

272

Sakaino argues that that the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 T360 should be attributed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢 (whose name still appears in this form in the present Taishō as a co-translator with Faxian 法顯 of T1427), against the received ascription to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧, on grounds of external and internal evidence.

His main arguments are as follows.

In all, twelve putative translations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha are reported, of which five are extant, and seven lost (Sakaino adds that those allegedly lost seven translations were included just in LDSBJ and other unreliable catalogues, and in fact never existed). Of these, two of the extant versions are relatively new, and their ascriptions are not problematic. Ascriptions of all of the other three extant scriptures should be corrected: the 平等覺經 T361 ascribed to *Lokakṣema should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokakṣema; and the 無量壽經 T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 should be re-ascribed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢.

The vocabulary of the T360 is very new and could not belong to the Wei-Wu 魏呉periods. Sakaino maintains that the text should be the one referred to as the “New Sukhāvatīvyūha” 新無量壽經, ascribed to Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅/覺賢, which has been considered lost. Especially, the use of the term huayan sanmei 華嚴三昧 at the beginning of the text clearly suggests its relation to the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華嚴經 T278 ascribed to Buddhabhadra. There is another “New Sukhāvatīvyūha” 新無量壽經 ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲 listed in CSZJJ, but Sakaino claims that it is the same text as that ascribed to Buddhabhadra, since the two are recorded as translated in the same place in the same year. Baoyun probably worked as the “interpreter/oral translator” 傳語.

Edit

243-246

Sakaino states that in all, twelve putative translations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha are reported, of which five are extant, and seven lost (Sakaino adds that those allegedly lost seven translations were included just in LDSBJ and other unreliable catalogues, and in fact never existed). Of these, two of the extant versions are relatively new, and their ascriptions are not problematic. Ascriptions of all of the other three extant scriptures should be corrected: the 平等覺經 T361 ascribed to *Lokakṣema should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa ; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokakṣema; and the 無量壽經 T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 should be re-ascribed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢.

As for T361, Sakaino maintains that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, which has long been regarded as lost, is actually T361. T361 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the Da Amituo jing 大阿彌陀經, earlier translated by *Lokakṣema. The revision was made due to the differences between the Da Amituo jing 大阿彌陀經 and the original text 原本 that Dharmarakṣa brought to China. Sakaino claims that this much is clear from textual analysis.

Edit

182-183, 243

Sakaino states that in all, twelve putative translations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha are reported, of which five are extant, and seven lost (Sakaino adds that those allegedly lost seven translations were included just in LDSBJ and other unreliable catalogues, and in fact never existed). Of these, two of the extant versions are relatively new, and their ascriptions are not problematic. Ascriptions of all of the other three extant scriptures should be corrected: the 平等覺經 T361 ascribed to *Lokakṣema should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa ; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokakṣema; and the 無量壽經 T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 should be re-ascribed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢.

Edit

182-183, 243

Sakaino maintains that the extant Hou chu Amituo Fo jing 後出阿彌陀佛偈 T373 is probably Dharmarakṣa’s work, judging from the vocabulary (although he also mentions that there is a small possibility that the text was created from scratch by Dharmarakṣa or some person else). For example, Sakaino quotes the beginning part of the text: 惟念法比丘、乃從世饒王、發願喻諸佛、誓二十四章、世世見諸佛、姟數無有量、不廢宿命行、功德遂具成、世界名清淨、得佛號無量、國界平夷易、豐樂多上人 [CBETA, with a few differences from Sakaino --- AI], and claims that this passage contains terms specific to Dharmarakṣa. For example, 世界名清淨、得佛號無量 contains 無量清淨 (separated as 無量 and 清淨 metri causa), and this 無量清淨 is also used in the 平等覺經 [無量清淨平等覺經 T361] (T361 is ascribed to *Lokakṣema but Sakaino thinks it should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa).

Edit

185-186

Sakaino suggests that the although the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 大般泥洹經 T376 (6 juan) is commonly regarded as the work of Faxian 法顯, it is more appropriate to regard it as translated by Buddhabhadra.

Edit

514

Sakaino discusses in some detail reports about various versions of the *Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 that are supposed to have circulated, and the process by which the present text, T397, was formed. He rejects as erroneous traditions that earlier translations existed by *Lokakṣema and Kumārajīva (577-578). He points out that the title 大集經 is used within the text itself (e.g. in the 寶女品 T397[3] *Mahāyānopadeśa, and the 不眴菩薩品 T397[4]), but he thinks that these instances of the title were interpolated after the formation of the complete text. He discusses the likely structure of the text in its original form at the time it was first translated by *Dharmakṣema, including the possibility that one sūtra ("chapter" 品) has gone missing between the present sūtras 5 and 6 (海慧菩薩品 *Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā, and 無言菩薩品); and he discusses differences between reports (or views) of Sengyou and Zhisheng about the structure of the text (584-586).

Sakaino states that Sengjiu 僧就 of the Sui first edited the text into the “new, synoptic *Mahāsaṃnipāta” 新合大集經 in sixty juan, by adding new parts such as the Sūryagarbha 日藏經 T397(14) in fifteen juan and the Candragarbha 月藏經 T397(15) in twelve juan, both ascribed to Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍.

See further other entries for Sakaino’s suggestions about individual sutras in this collection.

Edit

577-588

A Banzhou sanmei jing 本般舟三味經 in one juan is ascribed to *Lokakṣema in CSZJJ, and should correspond to the extant T417. CSZJJ does not record a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛. It was LDSBJ that first recorded separately a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema and another ascribed to Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino points out that Fei took the former entry from CSZJJ, and the latter from GSZ. Sakaino states, however, that CSZJJ and GSZ might well have recorded the same text, in the translation of which both Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema were involved, the former handling the text 執本, and the latter as oral translator 傳語. Sakaino also mentions the possibility that *Lokakṣema translated the one juan, incomplete version T417 first, and the three-juan, complete version T418, the base text of which was brought to China by Zhu Shuofo, only later, as in the case of the “excerpted” Prajñāpāramitā 般若鈔經 [cf. 摩訶般若鈔經 T226 ascribed to 曇摩蜱譯 and 竺佛念] and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行般若經 (T224 ascribed to *Lokakṣema).

Sakaino maintains that both T417 and T418 should be *Lokakṣema’s works, but revised by Dharmarakṣa. He discusses the following characteristics of the vocabulary of T417 and T418 as part of his support for this claim:

The differences between the vocabulary of the one-juan version (T417) and that of the three-juan version (T418) are not substantial enough to regard the two texts as translated by different translators. Examples are: nirvāṇa: 涅槃 T417, 泥洹 418; yakṣa: 夜叉 T417, 閲叉 418; and kiṃnara: 甄陀羅 T417, 眞陀羅 418.

涅槃 for nirvāṇa in T417 appears odd, as *Lokakṣema always used 泥洹, but it is [according to Sakaino – MR] explicable if Dharmarakṣa later revised the text.

For kiṃnara, *Lokakṣema uses mostly 甄陀羅 or 甄陀, very rarely 眞陀羅. Dharmarakṣa uniformly used 眞陀羅.

Many other words are, according to Sakaino, used by both *Lokakṣema and Dharmarakṣa, and so are not useful in determining ascriptions, e.g., 阿耨多羅三耶三菩阿惟三佛, 薩阿竭阿羅訶三耶三佛, 摩訶衍三拔致薩芸若, and 摩訶僧那僧涅.

Sakaino maintains that 恒邊沙 (for “the sands of the river Ganges”), seen in T418, appears only in *Lokakṣema’s work [sic—it also appears in the “Larger” Prajñāpāramitā 放光般若經 T221 ascribed to Mokaṣala 無羅叉, and some other texts in the PP line; scattered in small concentrations in some other works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, e.g. T263, T266, T323, T342, T378, T401, T433, T598, T810, T811; and outside Dharmarakṣa and PP, in several texts like T269, T309, T356, T434, T621, T632, T760, T816 and T1507 --- AI/MR].

Sakaino points out that a note on T417 entitled Banzhou sanmei jing ji 般舟三昧經記 contains confusions, including a claim that Dharmarakṣa was the oral translator for Lokakṣema, which is chronologically impossible. In addition, CSZJJ comments on the Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa that Dao'an's catalogue calls it a "reissue" 安公錄云更出般舟三昧經, T2145 (LV) 8a1. Sakaino conjectures that Dharmarakṣa might well have revised T417 perhaps because he obtained a different original, which would explain those [apparently confused] records.

Sakaino maintains that the extant T418 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. The ascription of a Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 in three juan to Dharmarakṣa was first given by Jingtai. Jingtai states that the text sometimes also circulated in two juan, forty-seven sheets.

KYL classifies a two juan Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa as lost, while ascribing the three juan Banzhou sanmei jing to *Lokakṣema. Sakaino points out that as no catalogues before KYL record the three juan version ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Probably Zhisheng mistook the three-juan version he saw for *Lokakṣema’s work, while simultaneously classifying Dharmarakṣa’s version as lost, overlooking the record of the three-juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Jingtai. In addition, KYL gives the same year of translation (Guanghe 光和 2, 179 CE) for the three juan 般舟三昧經 to *Lokakṣema and for the two juan version of the text ascribed to Zhu Shuofo, which, Sakaino states, shows the carelessness of Zhisheng (これ明に智昇の杜撰を暴露するものである). According to Sakaino, the fact that the translation year is the same indicates that Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema worked together in translating the one-juan/two-juan version of the text. Sakaino thinks that the variation in length is due to the existence of incomplete and complete versions. By contrast, the three juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa should be the extant T418, since it has never been recorded as lost (except in KYL). Sakaino infers that T418 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the two juan version ascribed to Zhu Shuofo (with *Lokakṣema as the oral translator), which explains why Dharmarakṣa’s version is said variously to be in two or three juan. Sakaino adds that the one juan version of the text that he regards as genuinely due to *Lokakṣema, T417, should also have been revised by Dharmarakṣa.

Edit

883-890

Sakaino notes the following two notes in KYL, on different versions of the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi:

一名十方現在佛悉在前立定經舊錄云大般舟三昧經或二卷光和二年譯初出與大集賢護經等同本見聶道真錄及吳錄, T2154 (LV) 478c9-10 (in a list of texts ascribed to *Lokakṣema).

光和二年十月八日出見經後記高僧傳等二經同時啟夾故出日同也舊錄云大般舟三昧經或一卷第二出與大集賢護經等同本, T2154 (LV) 482b16-17 (ascribing this version of the text to Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔).

Sakaino argues that these notes demonstrate that even Zhisheng is sometimes unreliable, since they indicate, implausibly, that two versions of the text (in 2 juan, and in 3 juan) were completed in the same year (光和 2 = 179 CE). All we can conclude on the basis of these notes is that a single version of the text in either 1 or 2 juan was translated by Zhu Foshuo/Shuofo 朔佛 and *Lokakṣema together in 179. The ascription of the 3 juan version [Sakaino also points out elsewhere that this version is also recorded as 2 juan in some catalogues ---AI] to *Lokakṣema in KYL is therefore incorrect.

Edit

890-891

A Banzhou sanmei jing 本般舟三味經 in one juan is ascribed to *Lokakṣema in CSZJJ, and should correspond to the extant T417. CSZJJ does not record a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛. It was LDSBJ that first recorded separately a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema and another ascribed to Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino points out that Fei took the former entry from CSZJJ, and the latter from GSZ. Sakaino states, however, that CSZJJ and GSZ might well have recorded the same text, in the translation of which both Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema were involved, the former handling the text 執本, and the latter as oral translator 傳語. Sakaino also mentions the possibility that *Lokakṣema translated the one juan, incomplete version T417 first, and the three-juan, complete version T418, the base text of which was brought to China by Zhu Shuofo, only later, as in the case of the “excerpted” Prajñāpāramitā 般若鈔經 [cf. 摩訶般若鈔經 T226 ascribed to 曇摩蜱譯 and 竺佛念] and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行般若經 (T224 ascribed to *Lokakṣema).

Sakaino maintains that both T417 and T418 should be *Lokakṣema’s works, but revised by Dharmarakṣa. He discusses the following characteristics of the vocabulary of T417 and T418 as part of his support for this claim:

The differences between the vocabulary of the one-juan version (T417) and that of the three-juan version (T418) are not substantial enough to regard the two texts as translated by different translators. Examples are: nirvāṇa: 涅槃 T417, 泥洹 418; yakṣa: 夜叉 T417, 閲叉 418; and kiṃnara: 甄陀羅 T417, 眞陀羅 418.

涅槃 for nirvāṇa in T417 appears odd, as *Lokakṣema always used 泥洹, but it is [according to Sakaino – MR] explicable if Dharmarakṣa later revised the text.

For kiṃnara, *Lokakṣema uses mostly 甄陀羅 or 甄陀, very rarely 眞陀羅. Dharmarakṣa uniformly used 眞陀羅.

Many other words are, according to Sakaino, used by both *Lokakṣema and Dharmarakṣa, and so are not useful in determining ascriptions, e.g., 阿耨多羅三耶三菩阿惟三佛, 薩阿竭阿羅訶三耶三佛, 摩訶衍三拔致薩芸若, and 摩訶僧那僧涅.

Sakaino maintains that 恒邊沙 (for “the sands of the river Ganges”), seen in T418, appears only in *Lokakṣema’s work [sic—it also appears in the “Larger” Prajñāpāramitā 放光般若經 T221 ascribed to Mokaṣala 無羅叉, and some other texts in the PP line; scattered in small concentrations in some other works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, e.g. T263, T266, T323, T342, T378, T401, T433, T598, T810, T811; and outside Dharmarakṣa and PP, in several texts like T269, T309, T356, T434, T621, T632, T760, T816 and T1507 --- AI/MR].

Sakaino points out that a note on T417 entitled Banzhou sanmei jing ji 般舟三昧經記 contains confusions, including a claim that Dharmarakṣa was the oral translator for Lokakṣema, which is chronologically impossible. In addition, CSZJJ comments on the Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa that Dao'an's catalogue calls it a "reissue" 安公錄云更出般舟三昧經, T2145 (LV) 8a1. Sakaino conjectures that Dharmarakṣa might well have revised T417 perhaps because he obtained a different original, which would explain those [apparently confused] records.

Sakaino maintains that the extant T418 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. The ascription of a Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 in three juan to Dharmarakṣa was first given by Jingtai. Jingtai states that the text sometimes also circulated in two juan, forty-seven sheets.

KYL classifies a two juan Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa as lost, while ascribing the three juan Banzhou sanmei jing to *Lokakṣema. Sakaino points out that as no catalogues before KYL record the three juan version ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Probably Zhisheng mistook the three-juan version he saw for *Lokakṣema’s work, while simultaneously classifying Dharmarakṣa’s version as lost, overlooking the record of the three-juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Jingtai. In addition, KYL gives the same year of translation (Guanghe 光和 2, 179 CE) for the three juan 般舟三昧經 to *Lokakṣema and for the two juan version of the text ascribed to Zhu Shuofo, which, Sakaino states, shows the carelessness of Zhisheng (これ明に智昇の杜撰を暴露するものである). According to Sakaino, the fact that the translation year is the same indicates that Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema worked together in translating the one-juan/two-juan version of the text. Sakaino thinks that the variation in length is due to the existence of incomplete and complete versions. By contrast, the three juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa should be the extant T418, since it has never been recorded as lost (except in KYL). Sakaino infers that T418 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the two juan version ascribed to Zhu Shuofo (with *Lokakṣema as the oral translator), which explains why Dharmarakṣa’s version is said variously to be in two or three juan. Sakaino adds that the one juan version of the text that he regards as genuinely due to *Lokakṣema, T417, should also have been revised by Dharmarakṣa.

Edit

883-890

The *Bhadrakalpika-sūtra 賢劫經 T425 was listed in LDSBJ as two different texts, 賢劫經 and 颰陀劫三昧經. KYL corrected this mistake.

Edit

194

Sakaino suggests that the Duoluoni ju zhou jing 陀羅尼句咒經 (Chi ju shenzhou jing 持句神咒經 T1351), the Hua ji tuoluoni zhou jing 華積陀羅尼咒經 T1356, the Ba jixiang jing 八吉祥經 T430, and the Fa lü jing 法律經 (Fa lü sanmei jing 法律三昧經 T631) ascribed to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ were taken from Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯錄 in CSZJJ, and are not Zhi Qian’s translations.

Edit

111

Sakaino claims that although the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa] has several oddities with regard to terminology (such as the juxtaposition of 化自在 and 他化自在, which should have both meant the same thing for Dharmarakṣa), in all the text can safely be regarded as the work of Dharmarakṣa.

Edit

126-127

Sakaino Kōyō argued in 1935 that T474 was in fact Dharmarakṣa’s revision of Zhi Qian’s translation, basing his argument upon a small number of translation terms in the text, which he regarded as found in either Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa but not the other. For Zhi Qian, Sakaino’s terms are 明度 (though in fact this term for prajñāpāramitā does appear a handful of times in texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa) and 溝港 (for śrota-āpanna, which indeed never appears in Dharmarakṣa). For Dharmarakṣa, Sakaino cites a distinctive form of part of the list of the “eightfold assembly”: 揵沓和、阿須倫、迦留羅、甄陀羅，摩睺勒 (T474 [XIV] 519b23-24), and the phrase 江河沙 for (as numerous as) “the sands of the Ganges”.

Edit

147-148

Sakaino suggests that the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 [T511 ascribed to Zhi Qian] might indeed be Zhi Qian’s work, as it is listed by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ, although it was initially included in the new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 of CSZJJ. This is because T511 contains the phrase 王舍國雞山, typically used by Zhi Qian. Still, Sakaino admits that the text also uses the transliterated terms such as 須陀洹 for srotaāpanna, conjecturing that other words for the four fruits of arhatship 四果聲聞 [used by Zhi Qian often, but not in T511], like 溝港 and so forth, may not be present in all his works.

Edit

131

The 諫 王經 T514 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ is the Da xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 in Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄. According to Sakaino, the note on this title in LDSBJ (未詳大小) expresses doubt as to whether the text is really the same as the Da xiao jian wang jing listed by Dao’an. Sakaino points out that, whether or not the extant T514 is the Da xiao jian wang jing, it is clear that Fei took the entry from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts, as he imports most of the titles in the section 段 where the Da xiao jian wang jing is listed by Sengyou into his list of works that he ascribes to Juqu Jingsheng.

Edit

869

Sakaino claims that the ascription of the extant Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527 to Zhi Fadu 支法度, and also that of the extant 菩薩逝經 T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, originated in LDSBJ (clearly implying that both are groundless). He points out that Fei took those titles from the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子逝經 in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯經, as well as the Shi jing 逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯. Fei used the same title, Shi jing 逝經 to fabricate another entry, the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲.

Edit

870

Sakaino claims that the Xumoti zhangzhe jing 須摩提長者經 T530 is not Zhi Qian’s work, since it uses relatively new terms including 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提; 夜叉、乾闥婆、阿修羅、迦樓羅、緊那羅、摩睺羅伽 for various categories in the "eightfold celestial congregation" 天龍八部, and 色受想行識 for the five aggregates 五蘊.

Edit

132

Sakaino claims that the 差摩竭經 [cf. 菩薩生地經 T533 ascribed to Zhi Qian ---MR] is probably the work of Dharmarakṣa, not Zhi Qian. He bases this judgement on the terminology, e.g., 無量壽佛清淨國. It is still possible that the text is the work of *Lokakṣema, Sakaino adds, but in any case there are no characteristics of Zhi Qian in the text.

Edit

122

Sakaino claims that the 龍施女經 Longshinü jing [T557 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is not the work of Zhi Qian. He bases his judgement on the style 文體 of the work [though perhaps Sakaino means by this term the terminology of the text, more specifically, given the way in which he examines the contents of texts more generally ---AI]. According to Sakaino, T557 does not appear to be the work of *Lokakṣema, either, but may be Dharmarakṣa’s work.

Edit

128

Sakaino argues that although KYL includes the Lao mu jing 老母經 T561 in a group of anonymous scriptures of the Song period, the text should have been translated earlier than the Song period, judging from its vocabulary.

Edit

113

LDSBJ ascribes the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 (T604) to An Shigao, but Sakaino points out that this title was listed in among anonymous texts 失譯錄 in Dao’an’s catalogue. In content, the text merely comprises a list of the items 名目 in the rubric of the thirty seven “limbs of awakening” 三十七道品 (*bodhipakṣikāḥ dharmāḥ).

Edit

859

Sakaino maintains that the Dao di jing 道地經 (T607) in one juan ascribed to An Shigao is likely to be the Pusa dao di jing 菩薩道地經 in one juan listed in the Dao'an catalogue of alternate translations of old scriptures 道安異古經錄 with the note 安公云出方等部, and not the text ascribed to An Shigao in CSZJJ. Reasons for this claim are: while T607 is in one juan, the Da dao di jing 大道地經 listed in CSZJJ as An Shigao’s work (the title which is often regarded as T607) is in two juan; and the Da dao di jing 大道地經 listed in CSZJJ was recorded as lost by the time of Sengyou.

Sakaino also states that the extant T607 corresponds to a portion of the Xiuxing dao di jing 修行道地經 in seven juan (exactly as was the case for the lost Da dao di jing 大道地經 is described in CSZJJ). He holds that it is difficult to tell whether the text of T607 was made from the Xiuxing dao di jing (T606 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa), or T606 was developed from T607.

Edit

76-77

According to Sakaino, the ascription of the extant Xiao dao di jing 小道地經 T608 to Zhi Yao 支曜 is baseless. The text is an old translation and likely to be the work of Zhi Qian or *Lokakṣema 支讖. In LDSBJ, Fei Changfang newly ascribes nine titles to Zhi Yao without any evidence, including the Xiao dao di jing. All of those nine titles are found in either Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of old scriptures 安公古異經錄, Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄, or Dao'an's catalogue of alternate scriptures translated under the Northern Liang 安公凉土異經錄. The Xiao dao di jing is first listed in Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of old scriptures as an anonymous scripture, with the title Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang 道地經中要語章 (1 juan).

Edit

77-78

The Chan yao fa 禪要法 (3 juan) (T609?, currently treated as anonymous in T) is simply the result of proofreading and correction of the Zuo chan sanmei jing 坐禪三昧經 T614. Sakaino agrees with Zhisheng in thinking that the Chan yao fa need not be listed independently.

Edit

346-349

Sakaino states that LDSBJ records three translations of the Chan mi yao jing 禪秘要經: by Zhi Qian, Kumārajīva, and Dharmamitra. CSZJJ lists a Chan mi yao 禪秘要 (with the alternate title Chan fa yao 禪法要) ascribed to Dharmamitra, but does not list Zhi Qian’s and Kumārajīva’s versions. In the Taishō 現存藏, the Chan mi yao fa jing 禪祕要法經 (T613) is ascribed to Kumārajīva. Sakaino maintains that this ascription to Kumārajīva is not reliable because it was first given in LDSBJ , which cites the Bie lu 別錄 (which Sakaino takes to probably be a general term referring to various materials other than catalogues). Sakaino suspects that Kumārajīva’s version might not ever have existed, and proposes that T613 should be reascribed to Dharmamitra of the [Liu] Song; thereafter, copies of the same text circulating in southern China were mistaken for the work of Zhi Qian.

Edit

862-863

According to Sakaino, the so-called “*Dhyāna sūtra” 禪經, which is among the four titles correctly ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲, refers to the Chan yao mimi zhi bing jing 禪要秘密治病經 (cf. T613, T620). By contrast, the ascription of the Chan fa yao jie 禪法要解 (cf. T616) to Jingsheng is a fabrication on the part of Fei Changfang. Sakaino states that there was only ever one Chan fa yao jie, namely, the text ascribed to Kumārajīva (T616), and Zhisheng in KYL is also incorrect in listing a supposed second translation, under the influence of LDSBJ. Sakaino explains that the Chan yao [mimi zhi bing jing] is a translation of the Zhi bing jing 治病經 made under the N. Liang 凉, while the version made under the (Liu) Song is a transcription of an oral recitation, rather than a written text.

Edit

871-872

According to Sakaino, the so-called “*Dhyāna sūtra” 禪經, which is among the four titles correctly ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲, refers to the Chan yao mimi zhi bing jing 禪要秘密治病經 (cf. T620). By contrast, the Chan fa yao jie 禪法要解 (cf. T616) ascribed to Jingsheng is a fabrication on the part of Fei Changfang. Sakaino states that there was only ever one 禪法要解, the text ascribed to Kumārajīva (T616), and Zhisheng in KYL is also incorrect in listing the second translation, under the influence of LDSBJ. Sakaino explains that the Chan yao [mimi zhi bing jing] is a translation of the Zhi bing jing 治病經 made under the N. Liang 凉, while the version made under the (Liu) Song is a transcription of an oral recitation, rather than a written text.

Edit

871-872

The Zi shi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 (T622 ascribed to An Shigao) and the Rulai du zheng zi shi sanmei jing 如來獨證自誓三昧經 (T623 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa) are alternate versions of the same text. Sakaino states that "there are reasons that would lead us to imagine" that T622 should most likely be reascribed to Dharmarakṣa and T623 to Zhi Qian respectively [without stating those reasons explicitly]. He holds that T622 is clearly not An Shigao’s work. [Sakaino does not talk about this issue of ascription any further, and instead moves on to explain their 戒-related contents --- AI.]

Edit

851-852

Sakaino lists all titles for which Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, cited the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 (324-325):

- a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰;

- a Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭;

- thirteen titles, including a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra 内藏經, ascribed to An Shigao (cf. T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema);

- Five titles, including a Dun zhen tuoluoni [sic!] jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, ascribed to *Lokakṣema;

- an Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛;

- the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 [成具光明定意經] T630, (still today) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜;

- a Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨; and

- a Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 古維摩經 ascribed to Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調.

Sakaino then discusses each title in detail.

T784, Sakaino holds, is already known to be an apocryphon.

The Shi di duan jie jing is not listed in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, so it would be odd if it were later rediscovered in the Zhu Shixing catalogue, as Fei claims. The name Zhu Falan does not appear in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, but LDSBJ ascribes a variety of titles to him, such as this Shi di duan jie jing, a Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, a Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, a Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經, and an Erbailiushi juan [sic] heyi 二百六十卷 合異. Sakaino claims that Fei, who did not have enough knowledge to analyse and evaluate scriptures, just gathered those titles and ascribed them to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 without any basis in evidence. The Erbailiushi juan heyi , for instance, should be an erroneous record of the Erbailiushi jie sanbu heyi 二百六十戒三部合異 ascribed to Tanwulan 曇無蘭. This scripture compared three different versions of the 260 prohibitions of the Prātimokṣa, so could not have been produced when no version of the Prātimokṣa rules were yet available. It is clear that Fei Changfang made this ascription due to confusion between the names Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (Sakaino sees a possible reason for this error in the fact that, as he surmises, both represent *Dharmarakṣa). The Fo bensheng jing and Fo benxing jing are probably the same text listed twice; some catalogue probably mis-transcribed 本行 as 本生, and Fei then took the resulting title to be a different text. The Fo benxing jing is likely to actually refer to the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 ascribed to Tanwulan, another mistake resulting from the same confusion of names. Sakaino also suspects that the entry on the Shi di duan jie jing is based upon the ascription of a Shi di yiqie zhi de jing 十地一切智德經 ascribed to another Dharmarakṣa, viz., 竺法護, and thus also be based upon a similar confusion of names. Likewise, Sakaino speculates that the Fo fa hai zang jing could be an error for the Bao zang jing寶藏經 [文殊師利現寶藏經 T461] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.

The ascription of a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra to An Shigao is odd, as this is a Mahāyāna text while all the works of An Shigao are “hīnayāna.” Sakaino suspects that this record actually refers to内藏百寶經 T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema. The other twelve titles ascribed to An Shigao are all listed as “hīnayāna” texts in Sengyou’s catalogue, and are hence less problematic.

Four of the five titles ascribed to *Lokakṣema, except for the so-called Dun zhen tuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, were already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. In CSZJJ, Sengyou first listed the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā 伅眞陀羅經 T624, citing the Jiu lu 舊錄. However, Dun zhentuoluo 伅眞陀羅 is a transliteration of Druma-kinnara[raja], and has nothing to do with *dhāraṇī 陀羅尼, as Fei’s record of this title would appear to suggest. According to Sakaino, it is not known at which point the title was mistaken for 伅眞陀羅尼 --- in the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue, in LDSBJ, or by a later scribal error.

Sakaino states that he explained earlier that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā ascribed to Zhu Shuofo is probably the result of a misunderstanding on Sengyou’s part [see separate note on 253-257].

T630 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue.

The Wen diyu shi jing ascribed to Kang Ju appears first in GSZ, but too little is known about Kang Ju to make discussion worthwhile.

The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa ascribed to Yan Fotiao does not appear in CSZJJ. It was not included among the three versions of the text (ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭) referred to by Zhi Mindu, when he compiled the his synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩經. [Sakaino apparently implies that hence the version ascribed to to Yan Fotiao is spurious --- AI.]

In sum, Sakaino maintains that most of the major entries for which Fei Changfang claims the support of the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue are problematic, and that it is clear that his reports about the content of this catalogue are not reliable. Sakaino infers that the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 was composed sometime in the 550s or 560s, between the end of the Liang 梁 and the beginning of the Sui.

Edit

324-329

Sakaino discusses in detail some six to ten versions of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra which are reported by tradition to have existed at one time or another.

Edit

895-901

Sakaino enters into a complex discussion about the year of translation of the *Anuttarāśraya-sūtra 無上依經 (T669) including an analysis of the Chinese years cited in the materials. Based on that discussion, Sakaino states that, although LDSBJ and KYL disagree (the former classifies the text as a work of the Chen 陳 period, while the latter lists it as a work of the Liang 梁), T669 is more likely to be a translation of the Liang 梁 period.

Edit

704-707

Amid a general discussion of numerous problematic ascriptions to Zhi Qian found first in LDSBJ, Sakaino excepts the 貝多樹經 T713 (*Nidāna-sūtra, Nagaropama-sūtra), the ascription of which to Zhi Qian he says should be accepted.

Edit

141-145

Sakaino maintains that the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經, traditionally ascribed to An Shigao [T729], is probably Dharmarakṣa’s work. He makes his judgement on the basis of teminology, such as nimi 尼蜜 (an abbreviated form of boluonimi 波羅尼蜜, *paranirmita).

Edit

125-126

Sakaino briefly mentions that the Weiri za nan jing 惟日雜難經 T760 should correctly be called Weiyue nan jing 惟曰難經, where he takes 惟曰 as a translation of *vaipulya.

Edit

67

According to Sakaino, the 五十校計經 T397(17) was first ascribed to An Shigao, but the text was later incorporated into the 大方等大集經 T397, and as such, ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Sakaino says that the text is indeed *Lokakṣema’s work, not An Shigao’s nor Zhi Qian’s (he suspects the latter, it seems, because of an entry in CSZJJ that gives the alternate title 明度五十校計經, 6a14, where 明度 is a Zhi Qian term). Sakaino briefly suggests that the terminology and style of the text place it close to the so-called Weiri za na jing 惟日雜難經 T760 (which Sakaino says should correctly be called Weiyue na jing 惟曰難經), where he takes 惟曰 as a translation of *vaipulya), and since he takes T760 also as a *Lokakṣema work this is the main grounds for his reascription of T397(17).

Edit

66-68

Sakaino argues that the Si bei jing 四輩經 [T769] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is actually the work of Zhi Qian, since the text uses terms such as 天帝, 龍, 明度, and so on.

Edit

135

LDSBJ lists the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 (T784) in both the catalogue of the Eastern Han 後漢録 and the Wu catalogue 呉録, ascribing it to Kāśyapa Mātaṅga [迦葉]摩騰 and Zhi Qian respectively. Further, Fei Changfang states in the ascription to Zhi Qian that the two texts are not very different, sounding as if he actually compared the two. Sakaino points out that Fei was either deliberately fabricating information here, or was ignorant enough to see two transcriptions of the same text and judge that they were alternate translations.

Edit

314

Sakaino claims that it is difficult to determine who really translated the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 [T816 ascribed to An Faqin 安法欽], but it is likely to be the work of *Lokakṣema 支讖 judging from the terminology (according to Sakaino, the examples of terms/phrases specific to *Lokakṣema include: 阿耨多羅三耶三菩心/阿耨多羅三耶三佛; the heaven names 四王天上、炎天、兜術天、尼摩羅提天、波羅尼蜜、惒耶拔致天; 尼摩羅提; and 如恒邊沙爲一佛刹).

Sakaino states that LDSBJ is the ultimate source of all the ascriptions to Tandi, *Dharmasatya(?) 曇諦, An Faxian 安法賢, An Faqin and Shengjian 聖堅 that appear in various catalogues [Sakaino seems to suggest that all of those ascriptions, including the ascription of T816 to An Faqin, are baseless, simply because they were first given by LDSBJ ---AI].

Sakaino also states that probably An Faqin did not exist. One of the reasons for his suggestion is the oddness of the character 欽 in his name, which does not appear to be either the translation or transliteration of any Sanskrit word (95-96). Sakaino proposes that probably both An Faqin and An Faxian were both probably created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shenjian (96-98).

Edit

92-98

Sakaino proposes that An Faqin 安法欽, like An Faxian 安法賢, probably in fact never existed, but rather, was a ghost created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shengjian 聖堅. Sakaino states that LDSBJ ascribes the following five titles to An Faqin 安法欽: the Da Ayuwang jing 大阿育王經 (5 juan) (cf. T2042), the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 (2 juan) (T816), the Wenshushili xian baozang jing 文殊師利現寶藏經 (2 juan) (cf. T461), the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 (2 juan) (cf. T626), and the Anantuo muqunihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (1 juan) (cf. T1013). Sakaino obviously rejects all of these ascriptions to An Faqin.

Among the above five titles, the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 [T816] and the 大阿育王經 [阿育王傳 T2042] are extant and still ascribed to An Faqin in T. According to Sakaino, T816 is likely to be the work of *Lokakṣema 支讖 judging from the terminology. Sakaino suggests no alternate ascription for T2042, only claiming that its vocabulary is clearly newer than that of T816, and that this title is the only one among the five that does not appear in any of previous catalogues. As for the other four titles, the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing and the Anantuo muqu nihelituo jing are found in the “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄 of CSZJJ; the Wenshushili xian baozang jing is found in the catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄, and may be the same text as the Fazang jing 法藏經ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in CSZJJ; and the title Asheshi wang jing was probably taken from a title ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in CSZJJ. Sakaino maintains that these four were ascribed to An Faqin in LDSBJ by confusion or deliberate fabrication.

Edit

92-98

Fajing ascribes T835 to Bodhiruci and *Buddhaśānta.

Edit

662-664

Sakaino states that the details of the translation work of the Zhancha shan’e ye bao jing 占察善惡業報經 (T839 ascribed to *Bodhidīpa/Putideng 菩提登) are not known [implying that the ascription may be incorrect --- AI], but that judging from its content, the text itself is at least not apocryphal. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ, KYL and T839 itself, and explains that the fact that T839 teaches rites of contrition 悔過法 in combination with prognostication techniques 占法 has made some scholars suspicious, but this could be the result of the integration of Brahmanical prognostication methods into a certain part of Buddhism. It is not known who Putideng was, but Sakaino conjectures that he might have translated T839 in Guangzhou 廣州 in an early period, as a practice called the “stupa contrition rite” 塔懺法, practiced in Guangzhou 廣州, is said to have been based on T839.

Edit

829-831

According to Sakaino, the fact that the Chu wuliang chi men jing 出無量持門經 and the Anantuomuqu nihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (*Anantamukha-dhāraṇī-sūtra) T1013 are listed separately indicates that Fei did not know that the two titles refer to the same text. Sakaino thinks that Fei imported the title Anantuomuqu nihelituo jing, together with many others, from CSZJJ, while taking the title Chu wuliang chimen jing from some other catalogue.

Edit

637

It is not exactly correct to say that *Buddhajīva 佛陀什 and Zhu Daosheng 竺道生 were the translators of the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 彌沙塞部和醯五分律 T1421, since Daosheng served only was the amanuensis 筆受 in the translation process, together with Huiyan 惠嚴. Sakaino claims that if one more name other than 佛陀什 to be added to the ascription, it should be Zhisheng 智勝, who was the oral translator/interpreter 傳語.

Edit

623-624

There exist two versions of the Dharmaguptaka Prātimokṣa 四分戒本 both ascribed to Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎: the 四分僧戒本 (T1430) and the 四分律比丘戒本 (T1429). Sakaino conjectures that probably one of the two was translated by Buddhayaśas, and the other was edited from the longer/full Vinaya 廣律, but mistaken for the work of Buddhayaśas. According to Sakaino, the preface to the text 四分比丘戒本序 by Huaisu 懐素 records that there existed four versions of both the Prātimokṣa for monks 比丘戒本 and Prātimokṣa for nuns 比丘尼戒本. Sakaino suspects that those variations were the result of transcribing processes and oral transmission.

Edit

793

Sakaino states that LDSBJ is the source of the ascriptions given to Tandi 曇諦 (*Dharmasatya?), An Faxian 安法賢 , and An Faqin 安法欽 , which appear in various catalogues. [Sakaino makes this remark in a context where he is fiercely criticising the general pattern of assignment of such new ascriptions in LDSBJ, and this therefore suggests that he regards all these ascriptions as baseless simply because they were first given by LDSBJ ---AI] . The 曇無徳羯磨 [羯磨 T1433] is still extant, and is first ascribed to Tandi by Fei [implying that the ascription is baseless].

Edit

92

Sakaino states that after the translation of the longer/full Vinaya 廣律, the “Bhikṣunī Prātimokṣa in Ten Recitations” (?) 十誦尼戒本 was lost as a separate text, but Faying 法頴 edited a new version of the text [from the full Vinaya 廣律; cf. T1437]. The biography of Faying 法頴 in GSZ records that he composed this and other texts 撰十誦戒本并羯磨等 (T2059 [L] 402a15). Some sources incorrectly record that Faying 法頴 actually compiled 集 the text himself.

Edit

792

The *Vinayamātṛkā 毘尼母經 T1463 was first recorded in Fajing 法經錄, and classified as an anonymous scripture of the Qin 秦 by KYL. Sakaino supports KYL’s view that T1463 is a scripture of the Qin period, quoting the phrase 舍摩陀者(秦言名滅) (T1463 [XXIV] 808c15). Sakaino tries to determine if the period was the Fu Qin 符秦 or Yao Qin 姚秦, by comparing the phraseology and terminology of T1463 and that of the Binaya lü 鼻那耶(律) T1464 and some other texts [p. 789], but he admits that the exercise is inconclusive, as terminology varies without indicating a particular period or authorship. Sakaino states that, still, the smooth flow of prose suggests that T1463 is more likely to be a translation of the Yao Qin 姚秦 period. Sakaino adds that there is a possibility that the oral translator 傳語 was Kumārajīva, but this is nothing more than speculation.

Edit

788-789

Sakaino states that the Da biqiu san qian weiyi 大比丘三千威儀 (T1470 ascribed to An Shigao) and the Fan jie zui bao qingzhong jing 犯戒罪報輕重經 (T1467 ascribed to An Shigao) should be the oldest scriptures in China using Vinaya 律 vocabulary, if they really are the works of An Shigao. However, Dao’an does not give any information about T1470, and Sengyou records it in the newly compiled continuation of (the catalogue of) anonymous scriptures 新集續失譯 as an anonymous scripture with the title Da biqiu wieyi jing 大比丘威儀經, stating that it is an alternate translation 異出本. LDSBJ first ascribed the scripture to An Shigao (citing the Bie lu 別録), with the title Da seng weiyi jing 大僧威儀經. The title of T1467 also appeared for the first time in LDSBJ. Sakaino maintains that there are not enough materials available to determine if the ascription of T1470 and T1467 is correct, especially because the Vinaya vocabulary largely remains stable throughout history, and hence does not indicate the time of translation/production. Still, Sakaino asserts that the ascription to An Shigao of those two texts is very dubious.

Edit

778-779

Sakaino states that ascription of the Jie xiao zai jing 戒消災經 (T1477 ascribed to Zhi Qian) first appeared in LDSBJ, which cites the Jiu lu 舊録 [Sakaino thereby implies that the ascription to Zhi Qian seems unreliable].

Edit

779-780

The Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 (T1485 ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念) is not recorded in CSZJJ, and is first ascribed to Zhu Fonian in LDSBJ. Sakaino maintains that this ascription is reasonable because 1) the text must have been translated under the Qin 秦, given that the text says 秦言 when providing a Chinese translation word for each of the stages of the bodhisatva path 菩薩階位; and 2) other translation words also support the ascription. Sakaino adds that if the ascription to Zhu Fonian is correct, T1485 would be the oldest scripture about Mahāyāna “Vinaya” 律 (precepts). (Sakaino mentions that he demonstrated earlier that the ascription of a Fan wang jing 梵網經 to Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳 of the Latter Han period is false, without specifying where he made this argument.) However, Sakaino points out that precepts 戒 are not the only core topic of T1485. Its core aim is to elucidate the path of the bodhisatva by clarifying each of the forty-two stages of that path 菩薩四十二位.

Edit

821-822

Sakaino states that the content of the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 was developed from the Shan sheng jing 善生經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含經 T26(135).

Edit

848

The ascription of the Shelifu hui guo jing 舍利弗悔過經 (T1492) to An Shigao is dubious, but in any case the text is one of the oldest scriptural translations. [Sakaino just says 然し少なくとも譯經中の最も古いものであることは否むことの出来ぬものである --- AI.]

Edit

851

Sakaino maintains that the anonymous Fenbie gongde lun 分別功徳論 (T1507) was not translated in the Latter Han period, since it has to be later than the translation of the *Ekottarikagama 增一阿含經 T125 (on which it is a commentary).

Edit

752-753

Not much is known about Ratnamati 勒那摩提. LDSBJ double-lists the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra 十地經論 T1522, the Commentary on the Kāśyapaparivarta [大]寶積經論 T1523, the Ratnagotravibhāga 究竟一乗寶性論 T1611, and the Fahua jing lun 法華經論 T1520 (commentary on the Lotus Sūtra), ascribing them to Ratnamati and to Bodhiruci separately. Sakaino claims that, as T1522 was co-translated by Ratnamati and Bodhiruci but misunderstood later as two different versions translated by each of the two [see above, 656-657 十地經論は勒那摩提菩提流支の共譯], probably the other three titles are also in fact the co-translation works of Ratnamati and to Bodhiruci.

Edit

668-671

Sakaino reviews different views about the translation of the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra 十地經論 T1522. XGSZ records that the three scholars involved [Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, and *Buddhaśānta] had disagreements in the translation process and each of them therefore translated a separate version of the text for himself. LDSBJ records only that Bodhiruci and Ratmamati were rivals competing for fame 爭名 and each of them produced his own translation, and these texts were later combined. Sakaino points out that XGSZ and LDSBJ clearly use the same source, Baochang 寶唱錄, so it is odd that the two records differ on the number of versions. Sakaino then maintains that Cui Guang´s 崔光 preface to T1522 is a more reliable source, Cui Guang having been present at the translation workshop, often working as amanuensis 筆受.

This preface records that T1522 was simply a co-translation by Bodhiruci and Ratnamati (with *Buddhaśānta as the oral interpreter 傳語). Cui mentions no disagreements or different versions. KYL also rejects the existence of multiple versions and ascribes the text to Bodhiruci. Sakaino points out that no traces of integration of multiple texts are found in T1522. Sakaino conjectures that it was not true that the translators produced different versions due to disagreements about the work of translation, but it was probably true that Bodhiruci and Ratnamati held different views about the teachings. This difference probably contributed to the formation of the stories about the different versions of T1522.

Edit

678-681

Sakaino argues that the Niepan lun 涅槃論 T1527 is an apocryphon 僞經, even though it is presented in the canon (to this day) as a translation of a commentary by Vasubandhu 婆藪槃豆. Sakaino’s main reason for this claim is that the text is structured according to the “Southern Version” 南本 T375, but the Nanben is a modified version of the “Northern Version” 北本 by *Dharmakṣema, with a revised structure based upon the six-juan version of the text ascribed to Faxian 法顯, 大般泥洹經 T376. It is transparently impossible that the structure of such a text could have been known to Vasubandhu in India. According to Sakaino, this text was probably produced prior to the N. Wei 北魏.

Edit

619-620

Edit

621-622

Sakaino states that the view is widely accepted that the *Prajñaptipāda 施設論 in seven juan (T1538, ascribed to *Dharmapāla 法護 of the Song) was part of a larger text, which he calls the Shishe zu lun 施設足論. Sakaino refers to de la Vallée Poussin’s work on the Tibetan translation of the text. The Tibetan translation has three sections, which Sakaino refers to as the 世間施設門, the 因施設門, and the 業施設門. T1538 corresponds to the 因施設門. Sakaino infers that there should have been several more sections in the text as a whole.

Edit

757

According to Sakaino, Xuanzang 玄奘 records that Kātyāyanīputra 迦多衍尼子, the author of the Jñānaprasthāna 發智論 [阿毘達磨發智論 T1544, ascribed to Xuanzang], is a different person from Kātyāyana 迦旃延, one of historical Buddha’s disciples. However, the *Vibhāṣā 鞞婆沙論 T1547 appear to confuse Kātyāyanīputra with Kātyāyana, while confusing the Jñānaprasthāna T1544 with the Prajñaptipāda 施設足論 T1538 recorded by Xuanzang as composed in the time of the historical Buddha. Thus, in T1547, the Jñānaprasthāna T1544 is recorded as composed in the time of the historical Buddha, by Kātyāyana, one of the Buddha’s disciples.

Edit

755-757

The initial translation of the *Vibhāṣā 鞞婆沙論 (T1547 ascribed to *Saṅghavarman 僧伽跋澄) was completed in Jianyuan 建元 19 (383), but it was far from a full translation of the entire text. *Saṅghadeva and Fahe 法和 re-translated the text. *Saṅghavarman recited 42 topics(? chu 處) out of 44, so two are missing. To demonstrate those points, Sakaino quotes the preface to T1547 by Dao’an, the preface to the *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26, GSZ, and the introduction 巻首 to T1547 itself.

Edit

753-755

The Jueding zang lun 決定藏論 (T1584 ascribed to Paramārtha) was first listed by KYL. Sakaino states that the ascription to Paramārtha is probably correct. He also points out that Zhisheng opined that the text was translated under the Liang 梁, on the basis of the phrase 欝陀南梁[v.l. 此, M]言持散 (T1584 [XXX] 1018c9).

Edit

707-708

Sakaino maintains that the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith 大乗起信論 (T1666) is not apocryphal. Fajing was the first to suspect the ascription to Paramārtha, because the text was not listed in the catalogue of his works (Sakaino lists a few works that might correspond to this supposed catalogue). LDSBJ, by contrast, does not show any doubt about the ascription to Paramārtha. KYL records, apparently based on the lost preface to the text 起信論序, details of the translation work of T1666 different from those in KYL, but Sakaino suspects that this preface was unreliable. Sakaino states that T1666 was not included in the catalogue in the time of Fajing because Paramārtha translated scriptures in different places, and it was probably too soon from the time of translation to be included in the catalogue. Sakaino also claims that there would not have been enough time to compose the text from whole cloth, even if somebody had wanted to counterfeit it.

Edit

708-709

Sakaino states that it is odd that LDSBJ cites the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄 only once in entries on Bodhiruci’s works, viz, in a note on the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra 十地經論 T1522, while by contrast, it frequently cites instead the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 or Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄. [Sakaino thinks that Li Kuo’s catalogue must have included Bodhiruci’s works, because of their chronological and geographic proximity.] Sakaino conjectures that maybe Fei did not see the Li Kuo catalogue directly, and just quoted it via other catalogues such as Baochang 寶唱錄; and that probably Fei wrote the note on T1522 referring to the preface of the scripture, not to Li Kuo’s catalogue.

Edit

659-661

Sakaino claims that as the terminology is usually used, the Fayi jing 法益經 (阿育王息壞目因緣經/阿育王太子法益壞目因緣經 T2045; cited by Sengyou in his Shijia pu, T2040 [L] 81b25 ff.) should not be ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, because, according to the preface to the same text (王子法益壊目因緣序) by Zhu Fonian, *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提 was responsible for “handling the text” 執本 and Zhu Fonian was the interpreter/oral translator 譯語. [Note: The problem here is largely terminological. In this and other statements, Sakaino usually follows tradition in regarding the term “translator” 譯 as appropriate only for the head of a translation project, often the person who “handled the text” 執本 --- MR.]

Edit

222-223

Sakaino conjectures that perhaps Jijiaye 吉迦夜 was the translator 譯 of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058, and Tanyao 曇曜 was the oral interpreter.

Edit

675

The preface to the Jingde chuan deng lu 景徳傳燈録 T2076 is ascribed to Tanlin 曇琳, but Sakaino suspects it is apocryphal. Sakaino states that Tanlin, a disciple of Bodhidharma, is a fictitious figure derived from the Tanlin 曇林 who worked as amanuensis 筆受 for the translation works of Prajñāruci 般若流支.

Edit

923-924

On the basis of a passage in GSZ, T2059 (L) 327b16-22, Sakaino states that Wang Fu 王浮 was most likely the author of the Laozi hua Hu jing 老子化胡經 T2139.

Edit

988-989

Sakaino introduces the view of Tiantai dashi 天台大師 , i.e. Zhiyi 智顗, expressed in his (Fahua) Wenju ji (法華)文句 T1718 (XXXIV) 114c23-115a2, that Kumārajīva’s Lotus 法華經 initially included the Devadatta chapter 提婆品 (quoted on 371). Sakaino claims that there is nothing odd about the absence of the Devadatta chapter, since it is now widely accepted that the original text Kumārajīva used was copied in Kuchā 龜茲, preserving an older form of the text than that used by Dharmarakṣa to produce his version of the text, 正法華 T263.

Sakaino adds that Jingxi 荊溪 (i.e. Zhanran 湛然), in T1719, also comments upon a theory of a ninefold analysis of the structure of the Lotus Sūtra (九轍説) by Sengrui 僧叡 in the 妙法蓮華經文句 T1718 by 智顗. This might be thought to imply that Sengrui saw the Devadatta chapter of the Lotus, which would then imply in turn that the Devadatta chapter was included in Kumārajīva’s translation of the text, However, Sakaino claims that there is nothing in what Zhanran says that demonstrates that Kumārajīva’s Lotus included the Devadatta chapter.

Edit

370-374

Sakaino points out that the ascription of the Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者經 in the Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經 T310(19) to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 is unreliable, agreeing with KYL, which also states that the ascription is incorrect.

Edit

247

Sakaino agrees with a popular view that the Shifang pusa pin 十方菩薩品 (T397[17]) was the Wushi jiaoji jing 五十校計經 ascribed to An Shigao, retitled and added to the *Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 by Sengjiu 僧就. In the extant T397, this text is placed at the end, and ascribed to Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍. Sakaino asserts that the content and vocabulary indicate that it is an old translation and the ascription to Narendrayaśas is incorrect .

According Sakaino, no explanation has been offered as to why Sengjiu retitled the text and added it to T397. Sakaino speculates that he perhaps did so on instruction from Narendrayaśas or Jñānagupta/Jinagupta 闍那崛多.

Edit

600-602

Nothing is recorded about Kang Ju 康巨 in CSZJJ, nor in Dao’an. This name first appears in GSZ and next in LDSBJ. Both GSZ and LDSBJ ascribed the Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 (not extant) to Kang Ju 康巨. However, LDSBJ’s record is unreliable, especially so since Fei cites the Zhu Zixing Han catalogue 朱子行漢錄 in its entry on this title. Materials are too scarce to judge if the GSZ’s record about Kang Ju 康巨 is correct or not.

Edit

239

According to Sakaino, the Xiao bannihuan jing 小般泥洹經 included in a list of titles ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ is based upon the title Nihuan hou zhu biqiu 泥洹後諸比丘經 in Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 [T2145 (LV) 24a21-22,] using the first of the alternate titles listed in the note (或云小般泥洹經或云泥洹後變記經或云泥洹後比丘世變經或云泥洹後比丘世變經). Sakaino adds that it is a common pattern in LDSBJ for Fei to use an alternate title in the note when taking an entry from Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures.

Edit

86-87

Sakaino states that the Xianzai Fo ming jing 現在佛名經 (not extant) ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in GSZ is not included in CSZJJ, and that the entry was probably an addition on the part of Huijiao.

Edit

638

The Zhao catalogue 趙錄 is cited by LDSBJ only for texts ascribed to Songgong 嵩公 [to whom no extant texts are today ascribed], Fayong 法勇 (*Dharmodgata) [to whom, again, no ascriptions survive in T], and Shengjian 聖堅 of the Qifu W. Qin 乞伏西秦 (regarding the Pusa suosheng di jing 菩薩所生地經 [a text which appears no longer to be extant]). Sakaino regards those citations are highly dubious and states that, even if the Zhao lu was reliable, it is not an important catalogue, since Fei cites it only three times.

Edit

331-332

The Mouzi li huo lun 牟子理惑論 (transmitted in the Hong ming ji 弘明集, T2102 [LII] 1a28-7a22) has been one of the most studied materials in the context of the relation between Daoism and Buddhism. According to Sakaino, some scholars think that the text was written not in the Latter Han period, but in the (Liu) Song period, and therefore, that Mouzi 牟子 was not the real author. The main evidence for this claim is external, namely, the fact that the work was first recorded in the list in the Fa lun 法論 by Lu Zheng 陸澄, which was compiled under the order of Emperor Ming 明 of the Song Dynasty.

Sakaino also introduces internal evidence, adduced by Tokiwa Daijō, in support of the hypothesis that the text was written under the Song. In as many as seven passages, the Bo Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun 駁顧道士夷夏論 by Huitong of Zhicheng si 治城寺惠通 (T2102 [LII] 45b26-47a8), also transmitted in the Hong ming ji, features virtually identical parallels to the Mouzi li huo lun. According to Sakaino, this indicates that the Mouzi li huo lun was written after the Bo Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun, which was written in the Taishi 泰始 era (465-571) of the reign of Emperor Ming 明 of the Liu Song (as recorded in the Fa lun 法論). Since it would have been unacceptable for any other author to borrow sentences from the work of Huitong in his own time, this suggests further that probably Huitong himself wrote the Mouzi li huo lun 牟子理惑論 to promote his view further.

Sakaino agrees with Tokiwa, stating that the fact that the two texts share the basic position of accepting the essential ideas 理 of Daoism while rejecting its doctrine of "immortals" 神仙説 also supports the possibility that the two were written by the same person. Sakaino quotes the seven parallel passages from each of the two texts (984-986). Sakaino adds that, since the Bo Go daoshi Yi Xian lun is an extremely short text, such extensive overlaps justify Tokiwa’s view. This means that Mouzi himself is a fabrication, and did not exist.

Edit

981-987