Source: Sakaino 1935

Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

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

Sakaino argues that the Si bei jing 四輩經 [T769] ascribed to Dharmaraksa is actually the work of Zhi Qian, since the text uses terms such as 天帝, 龍, 明度, and so on. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0769; Si bei xue jing 四輩學經; 佛說四輩經; Si bei dizi jing 四輩弟子經

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 argues that the Dengmu pusa suowen sanmei jing 等目菩薩所問三昧經 [T288] ascribed to Dharmaraksa is actually Zhi Qian’s work, since the text uses terms such as 質諒神 and 質諒帝. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0288; 等目菩薩所問三昧經

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 Koyo argued in 1935 that T474 was in fact Dharmaraksa’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 Dharmaraksa but not the other. For Zhi Qian, Sakaino’s terms are 明度 (though in fact this term for prajnaparamita does appear a handful of times in texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa) and 溝港 (for srota-apanna, which indeed never appears in Dharmaraksa). For Dharmaraksa, 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”. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 Zhi Qian 支謙 T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

 It is not exactly correct to say that *Buddhajiva 佛陀什 and Zhu Daosheng 竺道生 were the translators of the Mahisasaka 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. *Buddhajiva, 佛陀什 Zhisheng 智勝 T1421; 彌沙塞部和醯五分律

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 claims that the 龍施女經 Longshinu 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 *Lokaksema, either, but may be Dharmaraksa’s work. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0557; 佛說龍施女經

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

 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. Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經

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

 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). Weiqinan, 維祇難, *Vijayananda Zhi Qian 支謙 [Zhu] Jiangyan, [竺]將炎 T0210; 法句經; Dharmapada

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

According to Sakaino, the so-called “*Dhyana sutra” 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 Kumarajiva (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. Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 T0620; 治禪病祕要法

Sakaino maintains that the extant “New” Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 新無量壽經 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (無量壽經 T360) should be re-ascribed to Buddhabhadra. In addition, the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲 in catalogues such as CSZJJ did not exist, and those records also refer to this same text. The mistake reflected in those records stemmed from the fact that Baoyun acted as the oral interpreter 傳語, while the “text was handled” 執本 by Buddhabhadra.

Edit

540-541

 Sakaino maintains that the extant “New” Sukhavativyuha-sutra 新無量壽經 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (無量壽經 T360) should be re-ascribed to Buddhabhadra. In addition, the Sukhavativyuha 無量壽經 ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲 in catalogues such as CSZJJ did not exist, and those records also refer to this same text. The mistake reflected in those records stemmed from the fact that Baoyun acted as the oral interpreter 傳語, while the “text was handled” 執本 by Buddhabhadra. Baoyun, 寶雲 Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra

Sakaino discusses the possible roles of Faju 法炬 and Fali 法立 in translating the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 [T211], as CSZJJ and GSZ slightly differ about the matter [Sakaino does not seem to have a decisive view on this ---AI].

Edit

151-152

 Sakaino discusses the possible roles of Faju 法炬 and Fali 法立 in translating the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 [T211], as CSZJJ and GSZ slightly differ about the matter [Sakaino does not seem to have a decisive view on this ---AI]. Faju 法炬 Fali, 法立 T0211; 法句譬喻經

In a brief note, Sakaino states that although the ascription of the 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362 (which he refers to as the 大阿彌陀經) to Zhi Qian is generally believed by scholars, it is in fact the work of *Lokakṣema, and should be added to the list of his genuine translations. He does not discuss here his reasons for this reascription.

Edit

104-105

 In a brief note, Sakaino states that although the ascription of the 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362 (which he refers to as the 大阿彌陀經) to Zhi Qian is generally believed by scholars, it is in fact the work of *Lokaksema, and should be added to the list of his genuine translations. He does not discuss here his reasons for this reascription. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0362; 佛說阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經

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 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.] *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T2045; 阿育王息壞目因緣經

According to Sakaino, the traditional view about the alternate translations of the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 is that three of the six translations are extant 六譯三存 viz., the Mile lai shi jing 彌勒來時經 T457, the Mile xiansheng jing 彌勒下生經 (彌勒下生成佛經 T454) ascribed to Kumārajīva, and the Mile xiansheng cheng Fo jing 彌勒下生成佛經 T455 ascribed to Yijing 義浄 were considered extant, while the Mile danglai sheng jing 彌勒當來生經, the Mile zuo Fo shi jing 彌勒作佛時經, and the Mile xiasheng
jing 彌勒下生經 ascribed to Paramārtha 眞諦 were regarded as lost.

In addition, according to Sakaino, the Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 T456 ascribed to Kumārajīva are considered to be the same text 同本, and different from the so-called Xiasheng jing下生經. However, Sakaino points out that the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 should be regarded as just an alternate version 異本 of the Xiasheng jing 下生經, being not much different from it.

Edit

425-427

 According to Sakaino, the traditional view about the alternate translations of the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 is that three of the six translations are extant 六譯三存 viz., the Mile lai shi jing 彌勒來時經 T457, the Mile xiansheng jing 彌勒下生經 (彌勒下生成佛經 T454) ascribed to Kumarajiva, and the Mile xiansheng cheng Fo jing 彌勒下生成佛經 T455 ascribed to Yijing 義浄 were considered extant, while the Mile danglai sheng jing 彌勒當來生經, the Mile zuo Fo shi jing 彌勒作佛時經, and the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 ascribed to Paramartha 眞諦 were regarded as lost. In addition, according to Sakaino, the Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa and the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 T456 ascribed to Kumarajiva are considered to be the same text 同本, and different from the so-called Xiasheng jing下生經. However, Sakaino points out that the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 should be regarded as just an alternate version 異本 of the Xiasheng jing 下生經, being not much different from it. T0454; 佛說彌勒下生成佛經 T0455; 佛說彌勒下生成佛經 T0456; 佛說彌勒大成佛經 T0457; 佛說彌勒來時經; Mile danglai sheng jing 彌勒當來生經

In LDSBJ, Fei Changfang newly ascribes nine titles, including the Xiao dao di jing 小道地經 T608, to Zhi Yao 支曜, without giving any evidence. 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 translations of scriptures produced under the Northern Liang 安公凉土異經錄. CSZJJ ascribed to Zhi Yao only one text, the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 [成具光明定意經 T630]. This entry lists all the extant texts first ascribed to Zhi Yao by Fei, to which Sakaino's criticism here applies.

Edit

78

 In LDSBJ, Fei Changfang newly ascribes nine titles, including the Xiao dao di jing 小道地經 T608, to Zhi Yao 支曜, without giving any evidence. 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 translations of scriptures produced under the Northern Liang 安公凉土異經錄. CSZJJ ascribed to Zhi Yao only one text, the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 [成具光明定意經 T630]. This entry lists all the extant texts first ascribed to Zhi Yao by Fei, to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0046; 阿那律八念經; Jian yi xiang zheng jing 撿意向正經; Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經; Ba nian jing 八念經 T0114; 佛說馬有三相經; 善馬有三相經 T0115; 佛說馬有八態譬人經; 馬有八弊悪態經 T0608; 道地經中要語章; 小道地經

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

According to Sakaino, Fei ascribes the Wuliang yi jing 無量義經 (cf. T276 ) to Gunabhadra 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 *Dharmodgatayasas 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 *Sukhavativyuha 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. T0276; 無量義經

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

 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 Dharmaraksa), or T606 was developed from T607. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0607; 道地經

Edit

86-87

 Xian bannihuan jing 小般泥洹經

According to Sakaino, the Xiangying xiangke jing 相應相可經 (T111) ascribed to Faju 法炬 also appears in the anonymous Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 (T101[20]).

Edit

749

 According to Sakaino, the Xiangying xiangke jing 相應相可經 (T111) ascribed to Faju 法炬 also appears in the anonymous Samyuktagama 雜阿含經 (T101[20]). T0111; 佛說相應相可經

KYL adds the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 and the Binaiye lü 鼻奈耶律 T1464 as works of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. However, Sakaino points out that the ascription of T1485 came from LDSBJ [and therefor is not reliable]. Sakaino also points out that in the case of T1464, the “text was handled” 執本 by Kumārabuddhi 鳩摩羅佛提, and the role of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 was to interpret/orally translate 譯語. According to the preface by Dao’an, *Yaśas 耶捨, who accompanied Kumārabuddhi to China, recited the text from memory, and Kumārabuddhi wrote it down. *Yaśas was also called 罽賓鼻奈, the name which, Sakaino conjectures, was given because he memorized the Binaiye lü 鼻奈耶律.

Edit

223

 KYL adds the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 and the Binaiye lu 鼻奈耶律 T1464 as works of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. However, Sakaino points out that the ascription of T1485 came from LDSBJ [and therefor is not reliable]. Sakaino also points out that in the case of T1464, the “text was handled” 執本 by Kumarabuddhi 鳩摩羅佛提, and the role of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 was to interpret/orally translate 譯語. According to the preface by Dao’an, *Yasas 耶捨, who accompanied Kumarabuddhi to China, recited the text from memory, and Kumarabuddhi wrote it down. *Yasas was also called 罽賓鼻奈, the name which, Sakaino conjectures, was given because he memorized the Binaiye lu 鼻奈耶律. Kumarabuddhi, 鳩摩羅佛提 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T1464; 鼻奈耶

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

 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. Xian bannihuan jing 小般泥洹經

Edit

87

 Jinse nu jing 金色女經

Sakaino states tha the Jingfan wang banniepan jing 淨飯王般涅槃經 T512 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ was taken from a list of texts in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯, and claims that this change of title exemplifies the poor level of Fei’s fabrications, as he should have Jingfan wang bannihuan jing淨飯王般泥洹, not ~ banniepan ~, since he ascribes that text and the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145 to one and the same Juqu Jingsheng.

Edit

871

Sakaino states tha the Jingfan wang banniepan jing 淨飯王般涅槃經 T512 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ was taken from a list of texts in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯, and claims that this change of title exemplifies the poor level of Fei’s fabrications, as he should have Jingfan wang bannihuan jing淨飯王般泥洹, not ~ banniepan ~, since he ascribes that text and the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145 to one and the same Juqu Jingsheng. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0512; 佛說淨飯王般涅槃經

According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he gave a new ascription with no factual basis to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Wu fanfu dayi jing 五反覆大義經, which is most likely to be the same as the Wu wu fanfu 五無反覆 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯. The title of the extant text is also 五無反復經 T751 . Given the content of this scripture, Sakaino points out, the title should in fact be 五無反覆, not 五反覆.

Edit

869-870

According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he gave a new ascription with no factual basis to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Wu fanfu dayi jing 五反覆大義經, which is most likely to be the same as the Wu wu fanfu 五無反覆 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯. The title of the extant text is also 五無反復經 T751 . Given the content of this scripture, Sakaino points out, the title should in fact be 五無反覆, not 五反覆. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0751; 佛說五無反復經; Wu wufanfu jing 五無返復經, Wuyou fanfu jing 五有返復經

LDSBJ includes a title Jinse nü jing 金色女經 among its ascriptions to An Shiagao. According to Sakaino, this is the only title ascribed to An Shigao that is taken from Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經錄, but Fei often takes titles from that catalogue or Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄 in the case of other translators.

Edit

87

 LDSBJ includes a title Jinse nu jing 金色女經 among its ascriptions to An Shiagao. According to Sakaino, this is the only title ascribed to An Shigao that is taken from Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經錄, but Fei often takes titles from that catalogue or Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄 in the case of other translators. Jinse nu jing 金色女經

Sakaino claims that the entries for the “Twelve dhūtas sūtra” 十二頭陀經 T783 and the “Thirteen [sic] dhūtas sūtra” 十三頭陀經, both ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in LDSBJ, are is clearly a mistake on Fei's part, listing the same text twice, suggesting that maybe Fei was influenced by the repetition of the title 十二頭陀經 in CSZJJ.

Edit

637

Sakaino claims that the entries for the “Twelve dhutas sutra” 十二頭陀經 T783 and the “Thirteen [sic] dhutas sutra” 十三頭陀經, both ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in LDSBJ, are is clearly a mistake on Fei's part, listing the same text twice, suggesting that maybe Fei was influenced by the repetition of the title 十二頭陀經 in CSZJJ. T0783; 佛說十二頭陀經

Sakaino argues that the Laizhaheluo jing 頼吒和羅經 [T68, ascribed to Zhi Qian], which Sengyou added in his catalogue (CSZJJ), is probably the work of *Lokakṣema, since the text contains terms such as 須陀洹, 斯陀含, and so on. Sakaino also states that this scripture was listed by Dao’an as the anonymous 頼吒謣羅經.

Edit

134-135

 Sakaino argues that the Laizhaheluo jing 頼吒和羅經 [T68, ascribed to Zhi Qian], which Sengyou added in his catalogue (CSZJJ), is probably the work of *Lokaksema, since the text contains terms such as 須陀洹, 斯陀含, and so on. Sakaino also states that this scripture was listed by Dao’an as the anonymous 頼吒謣羅經. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0068; 賴吒和羅經

According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he baselessly gave a new ascription to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Damo jing 摩達經 (摩達國王經 T519) , which is the 摩達王經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures道安失譯, with the character 王 omitted.

Edit

869-870

According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he baselessly gave a new ascription to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Damo jing 摩達經 (摩達國王經 T519) , which is the 摩達王經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures道安失譯, with the character 王 omitted. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0519; Moda wang jing 摩達王經; 佛說摩達國王經

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 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]. T0027; 七智經; 七知經

According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he baselessly gave a new ascription to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經, which is the Shi jing 逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯 (cf. T528). Fei uses the alternate title 菩薩逝經 but replaces 逝 with 誓.

Edit

869-870

According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he baselessly gave a new ascription to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經, which is the Shi jing 逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯 (cf. T528). Fei uses the alternate title 菩薩逝經 but replaces 逝 with 誓. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0528; 佛說菩薩逝經; 菩薩逝經; Shi jing 逝經

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

 The *Saddharmapundarika-sutra 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 *Lokaksema. 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 *Lokaksema, 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). *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0265; 薩曇分陀利經

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

 Sakaino maintains that the following 13 texts ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ were taken from a list of Dharmaraksa’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 Dharmaraksa] - 迦葉結經 [cf. T2027 ascribed to An Shigao] - 流離王經 - 如幻三昧經 [cf. T342 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] - 當來變滅經 [cf. T395 當來變經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] - 太子慕魄經 [cf. T167 ascribed to An Shigao] - 四不可得經 [cf. T770 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] - 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 Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0167; 太子慕魄經 T0342; 佛說如幻三昧經 T0395; 佛說當來變經 T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經 T0603; 陰持入經 T0622; 佛說自誓三昧經 T0623; 佛說如來獨證自誓三昧經 T0701; 佛說溫室洗浴眾僧經 T0770; 佛說四不可得經 T1492; 佛說舍利弗悔過經 T2027; 迦葉結經; Jiashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經

Sakaino Kōyō gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題である); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ.

According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include:

- “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經;
- titles containing the word bodhisatva 菩薩;
- titles containing the names of the Buddha’s disciples;
- titles containing words such as 比丘, 比丘尼, 出家, 沙門;
- titles related to heavens;
- scriptures based upon analogies to or allegories about kings, princes, sons of householders, children, Brahmins, sages (*ṛṣi), women, householders, merchants, or animals;
- scriptures organised by numerical rubrics;
- scriptures related to hells;
- scriptures relating to samādhi or *dhyāna/chan;
- scriptures using as metaphors rivers, plants, trees, etc.;
- esoteric scriptures;

Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82).

Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82).

For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.]

In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyāna). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list:

23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha.

24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふべき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles.

17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyāna, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.]

The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11.

Edit

80-86

 Sakaino Koyo gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題てある); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ. According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include: - “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經; - titles containing the word bodhisatva 菩薩; - titles containing the names of the Buddha’s disciples; - titles containing words such as 比丘, 比丘尼, 出家, 沙門; - titles related to heavens; - scriptures based upon analogies to or allegories about kings, princes, sons of householders, children, Brahmins, sages (*rsi), women, householders, merchants, or animals; - scriptures organised by numerical rubrics; - scriptures related to hells; - scriptures relating to samadhi or *dhyana/chan; - scriptures using as metaphors rivers, plants, trees, etc.; - esoteric scriptures; Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82). Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82). For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.] In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyana). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list: 23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha. 24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふへき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles. 17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyana, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.] The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0016; 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T0022; 寂志果經 T0042; 鐵城泥犁經 T0058; 阿耨風經 T0086; 泥犁經; 凡人有三事愚癡不足經; Zhong ahan nili jing 中阿含泥犁經; 勤苦泥犁經 T0091; 婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T0092; 十支居士八城人經 T0131; 佛說婆羅門避死經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0139; 佛說四泥犁經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0140; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 阿那邠邸化七子經 T0149; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說阿難同學經 T0151; 佛說阿含正行經 T0216; 大魚事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0348; 佛說大乘方等要慧經; Fangdeng hui jing 方等慧經; Yao hui jing 要慧經 T0356; *Vevulla-Ratnakotisamadhi-Manjusripariprccha-dharmadhatu-dharmaparyaya/-sutra.; Weiri [ > Weiyue] baoji sanmei wenshushili wen fashen jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經; Weiri [> Weiyue] baoji sanmei Wenshushili wen fasheng jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經; 佛說寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T0393; Fo bannihuan shi Jiaye fu Fo jing 佛般泥洹時迦葉赴佛經; 迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T0492; Anan wen shi jing 阿難問事經; 阿難問事佛吉凶經 T0506; Jiantuo wang jing 犍陀王經; 犍陀國王經 T0510; 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經; Cai hua wei wang jing 採華違王經 T0525; 佛說長者子懊惱三處經; San chu nao jing 三處惱經 T0551; 佛說摩鄧女經; 阿難爲蠱道所呪經; *Matangi-sutra, *Sardulakarnavadana; 阿難爲蠱道女惑經; 摩登女經; 阿難爲蠱道呪經 T0621; 佛說佛印三昧經 T0622; 佛說自誓三昧經 T0684; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說父母恩難報經 T0724; 佛說罪業應報教化地獄經 T0729; Fenbie pinfu shan'e suoqi jing 分別貧富善惡所起經; Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經; 佛說分別善惡所起經 T0730; 佛說處處經 T0731; 佛說十八泥犁經 T0732; 佛說罵意經 T0733; 佛說堅意經; 堅心正意經; 堅心經; Jian yi jing 堅意經 T0734; 佛說鬼問目連經 T0743; 忠心正行經; 忠心政行經 ; Zhongxin jing 忠心經; 佛說忠心經 T0791; 佛說出家緣經 T1327; 佛說呪齒經; Zhou chong chi 呪虫齒; Zhou chi 呪齒 T1378; 幻師颰陀神呪經; 佛說玄師颰陀所說神呪經 T1391; 佛說檀特羅麻油述經 T1393; 佛說摩尼羅亶經 T1467; 佛說犯戒罪報輕重經 T1470; 大比丘三千威儀 T2027; 迦葉結經; Jiashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經 T2034; 歷代三寶紀

Sakaino points out that an anonymous preface to the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi 般舟三昧經, preserved in CSZJJ, appears to state anachronistically that Dharmarakṣa was the oral translator/interpreter 傳言 for *Lokakṣema’s translation of the text:

般舟三昧經。光和二年[179 CE]十月八日。天竺菩薩竺朔佛。於洛陽出。菩薩法護。時傳言者。月支菩薩支讖授與。河南洛陽孟福字元士。隨侍菩薩。張蓮字少安筆受... T2145 (LV) 48c10-16.

Sakaino suggests that despite the anachronism, this report may preserve in a garbled form a faint shadow of a historical memory that Dharmarakṣa at some point revised the text.

Edit

887-888, 306

 Sakaino points out that an anonymous preface to the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi 般舟三昧經, preserved in CSZJJ, appears to state anachronistically that Dharmaraksa was the oral translator/interpreter 傳言 for *Lokaksema’s translation of the text: 般舟三昧經。光和二年[179 CE]十月八日。天竺菩薩竺朔佛。於洛陽出。菩薩法護。時傳言者。月支菩薩支讖授與。河南洛陽孟福字元士。隨侍菩薩。張蓮字少安筆受... T2145 (LV) 48c10-16. Sakaino suggests that despite the anachronism, this report may preserve in a garbled form a faint shadow of a historical memory that Dharmaraksa at some point revised the text. T0417; Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra; 般舟三昧經 T0418; 般舟三昧經

Sakaino suggests that An Faxian 安法賢 as a person might have been created accidentally as a variation on the name of Fajian 法堅 (i.e., Shengjian 聖堅), and then An Faqin 安法欽 as a variation of An Faxian. This being so, both An Faxian and An Faqin might never have existed, but rather, be ghosts created by Fei. This would have the implication that all ascriptions to An Faxian and An Faqin are spurious.

Edit

98

 Sakaino suggests that An Faxian 安法賢 as a person might have been created accidentally as a variation on the name of Fajian 法堅 (i.e., Shengjian 聖堅), and then An Faqin 安法欽 as a variation of An Faxian. This being so, both An Faxian and An Faqin might never have existed, but rather, be ghosts created by Fei. This would have the implication that all ascriptions to An Faxian and An Faqin are spurious. T0816; Dao shenzu jing 道神足經; He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經; 佛說道神足無極變化經 T2042; 阿育王傳

Sakaino states that Sengyou, in CSZJJ, is incorrect in stating that the author of the *Saṅgharakṣa preface 僧伽羅刹序
(T2145 [LV] 71b2-23) is unknown. Sakaino claims that judging from the content, the author is clearly Dao’an.

Edit

226

 Sakaino states that Sengyou, in CSZJJ, is incorrect in stating that the author of the *Sangharaksa preface 僧伽羅刹序 (T2145 [LV] 71b2-23) is unknown. Sakaino claims that judging from the content, the author is clearly Dao’an. Sengqieluocha jing xu 僧伽羅剎經序

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

CSZJJ ascribes only the *Akasagarbha-sutra 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 *Akasagarbha-sutra. Sakaino rejects all of those ascriptions except the *Akasagarbha-sutra, 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0171; 太子須大拏經 T0175; 睒子經; Xiaozi Shan jing 孝子睒經 T0294; 佛說羅摩伽經 T0570; Xianshou furen jing 賢首夫人經; 佛說賢首經 T0571; 佛說婦人遇辜經; Fu yu dui jing 婦遇對經 T0696; 佛說摩訶剎頭經 T0744; 佛說除恐災患經 T0820; Yan dao su jing 演道俗經; 佛說演道俗業經 T1342; Wuya ji jing 無崕際經; Wu'ai ji chi famen jing 無崖際持法門經; 佛說無崖際總持法門經

According to Sakaino, Fei ascribes the Jingdu sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 to Guṇabhadra, stating that he referred to the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄. Further, Fei reports that it is one of four alternate translation of the same text: that translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 of the (Liu) Song, that by Baoyun 寶雲, that by Guṇabhadra, and that by Tanyao 曇曜. However, Sakaino points out that it is plausible that Fei misunderstood a single version co-translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 as two different texts, as CSZJJ records that those two scholars are supposed to have indeed co-translated three scriptures: the 廣博嚴淨經 T268, the 四天王經 T590, and the 普曜經 [??]. Sakaino adds that there is also a possibility that Fei simply allocated one title in Sengyou/Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous texts 失譯錄 to four different translators 譯者.

Edit

634-635

According to Sakaino, Fei ascribes the Jingdu sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 to Gunabhadra, stating that he referred to the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄. Further, Fei reports that it is one of four alternate translation of the same text: that translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 of the (Liu) Song, that by Baoyun 寶雲, that by Gunabhadra, and that by Tanyao 曇曜. However, Sakaino points out that it is plausible that Fei misunderstood a single version co-translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 as two different texts, as CSZJJ records that those two scholars are supposed to have indeed co-translated three scriptures: the 廣博嚴淨經 T268, the 四天王經 T590, and the 普曜經 [??]. Sakaino adds that there is also a possibility that Fei simply allocated one title in Sengyou/Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous texts 失譯錄 to four different translators 譯者. Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經

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

 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 *Nagadatta-sutra 龍施女 T557, and the *Rastrapala-sutra 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 (*Nidana-sutra, Nagaropama-sutra), the ascription of which to Zhi Qian he says should be accepted. T0020; 阿拔經; Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿跋經; 阿拔摩納經; Ambattha-sutra; 佛開解梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿颰經 T0067; Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 弊魔試目連經 T0068; 賴吒和羅經 T0214; 猘狗經 Zhi gou jing; Shuo/li(?) gou nie zhu jing 𤢴狗嚙主經; 𤢴狗齧王經 Shuo/li(?) gou nie wang jing T0427; 佛說八吉祥神呪經 T0557; 佛說龍施女經 T1356; 佛說華積陀羅尼神呪經 T1477; Jie xiaofu 戒消伏; 佛說戒消災經

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

 Amid a general discussion of numerous problematic ascriptions to Zhi Qian found first in LDSBJ, Sakaino excepts the 貝多樹經 T713 (*Nidana-sutra, Nagaropama-sutra), the ascription of which to Zhi Qian he says should be accepted. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0713; 聞城譬經; 貝多樹下思惟十二因緣經

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 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 bhiksu 比丘 in the title. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0039; *Murdhagata-sutra?; *Murdata-sutra?; 頂生王故事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0049; 求欲經 T0055; 苦陰因事經 T0064; 瞻波比丘經; 瞻婆比丘經 T0065; 伏婬經 T0070; 數經 T0111; 佛說相應相可經 T0113; 佛說難提釋經 T0122; 佛說波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; 波耶匿王經, 波斯匿王經, 波斯匿王喪母經, 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0133; 頻毘娑羅王詣佛供養經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0178; 前世三轉經 T0215; 群牛譬經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0332; 佛說優填王經 T0500; Luoyun ren jing 羅雲忍經; Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經; Ren ru jing 忍辱經; 羅云忍辱經 T0501; Shahe biqiu jing 沙曷比丘經; 佛說沙曷比丘功德經 T0502; 佛為年少比丘說正事經 T0503; 比丘避女惡名欲自殺經 T0508; 阿闍世王問五逆經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0509; 阿闍世王授決經 T0739; 佛說慢法經

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 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. T0188; 異出菩薩本起經 T0282; Pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 菩薩求佛本業經; 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T0463; 佛說文殊師利般涅槃經 T0483; 三曼陀跋陀羅菩薩經 T1502; 菩薩受齋經

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 argues that a number of new ascriptions to Dharmaraksa 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. Dharmaraksa is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. T0047; 離睡經 T0050; 受歲經 T0056; 樂想經 T0077; 尊上經 T0082; 意經 T0083; 應法經 T0136; 佛說四未曾有法經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0391; 般泥洹後灌臘經; Bannihuan hou si bei guanla jing 般泥洹後四輩灌臘經 T0428; 佛說八陽神呪經 T0611; 法觀經 T0612; 身觀經 T0685; 佛說盂蘭盆經 T0738; 佛說分別經 T0769; Si bei xue jing 四輩學經; 佛說四輩經; Si bei dizi jing 四輩弟子經

Sakaino points out that the Suntuoyezhi jing 孫陀耶致經 [T582 ascribed to Zhi Qian] has the term 應儀道 in it, and the Bo chao jing 孛抄經 [cf. 孛經抄 T790, ascribed to Zhi Qian] has the term 見諦溝港 (both of which are unique to Zhi Qian).

However, Sakaino is ambiguous about the ascription of T582, since it uses the word Taishan 太山 for hell, which appears often in Dharmarakṣa’s works, e.g., the Shunquan fangbian jing 順權方便經 T565. At one point, Sakaino even states that, since the word Taishan is used in the works like T565, which is established as Dharmarakṣa’s work, it might be an idea to attribute all the scriptures using Taishan 太山 to Dharmarakṣa (which should imply that T582 is Dharmarakṣa’s work, not Zhi Qian’s).

Still, Sakaino mentions the possibility that Zhi Qian was the person who first started using the word 太山 (in T582), as he also used Taishan diyu 泰山地獄, the pronunciation of which is similar to 太山, in the Wu mu zi jing 五母子經 T555. In that case, T582 should be unproblematically regarded as Zhi Qian’s work.

Edit

131-132

 Sakaino points out that the Suntuoyezhi jing 孫陀耶致經 [T582 ascribed to Zhi Qian] has the term 應儀道 in it, and the Bo chao jing 孛抄經 [cf. 孛經抄 T790, ascribed to Zhi Qian] has the term 見諦溝港 (both of which are unique to Zhi Qian). However, Sakaino is ambiguous about the ascription of T582, since it uses the word Taishan 太山 for hell, which appears often in Dharmaraksa’s works, e.g., the Shunquan fangbian jing 順權方便經 T565. At one point, Sakaino even states that, since the word Taishan is used in the works like T565, which is established as Dharmaraksa’s work, it might be an idea to attribute all the scriptures using Taishan 太山 to Dharmaraksa (which should imply that T582 is Dharmaraksa’s work, not Zhi Qian’s). Still, Sakaino mentions the possibility that Zhi Qian was the person who first started using the word 太山 (in T582), as he also used Taishan diyu 泰山地獄, the pronunciation of which is similar to 太山, in the Wu mu zi jing 五母子經 T555. In that case, T582 should be unproblematically regarded as Zhi Qian’s work. T0582; 佛說孫多耶致經; *Sundarika-sutra; 梵志孫陀耶致經

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 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). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0153; 菩薩本緣經

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

 Sakaino notes the following two notes in KYL, on different versions of the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi: 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 *Lokaksema). 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 *Lokaksema 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 *Lokaksema in KYL is therefore incorrect. T0417; Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra; 般舟三昧經 T0418; 般舟三昧經

Sakaino presents a list of the ten titles that KYL newly ascribed to Kumārajīva [p. 357, four of them are marked as extant: 海八德經 T35, 千佛因縁經 T426, 清淨毘尼方廣經 T1489, and 婆藪槃頭傳, cf. T2049, ascribed to Paramārtha in T). For seven of these texts, Zhisheng refers to the Fashang catalogue 法上錄. Sakaino points out that probably Fei Changfang did not directly see the Fashang catalogue, since he refers to it very rarely, and did not list it in any of his records of catalogues. Moreover, no details are known about this catalogue. This being the case, Zhisheng’s references to the Fashang catalogue do not appear very reliable. Thus, Sakaino maintains that it is difficult even to judge the reliability of these ascriptions. However, he suggests that other titles in the list, namely, the Shelifu hui guo jing 舎利弗悔過經 and the Qian Fo yinyuan jing 千佛因縁經, might be based upon confusion over entries pertaining to other texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. The Sarvapuṇyasamuccaya 集一切福德經 is recorded in the list as the same text 同本 as the 等衆德經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, which is also dubious, since the Zhenji si catalogue 眞寂寺錄 is cited as the source (cf. p. 185).

Edit

357-358

 Sakaino presents a list of the ten titles that KYL newly ascribed to Kumarajiva [p. 357, four of them are marked as extant: 海八德經 T35, 千佛因縁經 T426, 清淨毘尼方廣經 T1489, and 婆藪槃頭傳, cf. T2049, ascribed to Paramartha in T). For seven of these texts, Zhisheng refers to the Fashang catalogue 法上錄. Sakaino points out that probably Fei Changfang did not directly see the Fashang catalogue, since he refers to it very rarely, and did not list it in any of his records of catalogues. Moreover, no details are known about this catalogue. This being the case, Zhisheng’s references to the Fashang catalogue do not appear very reliable. Thus, Sakaino maintains that it is difficult even to judge the reliability of these ascriptions. However, he suggests that other titles in the list, namely, the Shelifu hui guo jing 舎利弗悔過經 and the Qian Fo yinyuan jing 千佛因縁經, might be based upon confusion over entries pertaining to other texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa. The Sarvapunyasamuccaya 集一切福德經 is recorded in the list as the same text 同本 as the 等衆德經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa, which is also dubious, since the Zhenji si catalogue 眞寂寺錄 is cited as the source (cf. p. 185). T0035; 八徳經; 海八德經 T0426; 佛說千佛因緣經 T1489; 清淨毘尼方廣經 T2049; 婆藪槃豆法師傳

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 lists 29 “Hinayana” 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] Zhi Qian 支謙 T0054; 釋摩男本四子經 T0068; 賴吒和羅經 T0076; 梵摩渝經 T0087; 齋經 T0185; 太子瑞應本起經 T0198; 佛說義足經 T0493; 佛說阿難四事經 T0581; 佛說八師經 T0790; 佛說孛經抄 T735C; T0735; 佛說四願經; Qi chu jing 七處經 fragment, 四願經 (mistitled)

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 begins by noting that the original of the “Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra” 大品 =光讚經 T222 ascribed to Dharmaraksa was probably brought to China from Khotan 于闐 by *Gitamitra(?) 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 *Gitamitra probably never translated any texts himself. This would imply that the ascriptions to *Gitamitra 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 Dharmaraksa). 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 Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa. Even the single title that CSZJJ also ascribed to *Gitamitra, viz., the 普門經, might be confused with Dharmaraksa’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 Dharmaraksa's translation project, but also, that this claim is impossible to prove, since Dharmaraksa'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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0284; 佛說菩薩十住經 T0315; 佛說普門品經 T0637; 佛說寶如來三昧經

According to Sakaino, Fei ascribed the 自誓三昧經 [T622 ascribed to An Shigao] to An Shigao, but without any solid basis for the ascription. Fei took the title either from the 自誓三昧經 T623 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, or the anonymous 自誓三昧經 listed in CSZJJ.

Edit

86

 According to Sakaino, Fei ascribed the 自誓三昧經 [T622 ascribed to An Shigao] to An Shigao, but without any solid basis for the ascription. Fei took the title either from the 自誓三昧經 T623 ascribed to Dharmaraksa, or the anonymous 自誓三昧經 listed in CSZJJ. T0622; 佛說自誓三昧經

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

 Sakaino maintains that KYL 開元釋敎錄 is highly unreliable in listing a “new Sukhavativyha” 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. "new Sukhavativyha" 新無量壽經

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 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]. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1433; 羯磨

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

 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. T0760; Weiri za na jing; Weiyue nan jing 惟曰難經; 惟日雜難經; Weiyueza nan jing 惟曰雜難經, Weiyueza nan jing 惟越雜難經

The so-called *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka 薩芸分陀利經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in LDSBJ (T2034 [XLIX] 62a15) probably did not exist. It was apparently created by Fei by mistaking the original title of the 正法華 as the title of a different scripture (188, 195). Saikaino adds that although the extant *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka 薩曇分陀利經 T265 might appear as if it is part of this so-called 薩芸分陀利經,, in fact, the two are different, since T265 was already recorded in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous translations 失譯錄 as the 分陀利經 in 1 juan, with a note saying, 舊錄云薩芸分陀利經或云是異出法華經 (195).

Edit

195

 The so-called *Saddharmapundarika 薩芸分陀利經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa in LDSBJ (T2034 [XLIX] 62a15) probably did not exist. It was apparently created by Fei by mistaking the original title of the 正法華 as the title of a different scripture (188, 195). Saikaino adds that although the extant *Saddharmapundarika 薩曇分陀利經 T265 might appear as if it is part of this so-called 薩芸分陀利經,, in fact, the two are different, since T265 was already recorded in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous translations 失譯錄 as the 分陀利經 in 1 juan, with a note saying, 舊錄云薩芸分陀利經或云是異出法華經 (195). 薩芸分陀利經 Saddharmapundarika-sutra

Edit

86

 Wu xing jing 五行經

Sakaino argues that the extant Qi nü jing 七女經 (T556, ascribed to Zhi Qian) is the Qi nü jing listed in the new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 of CSZJJ, but not the Qi nü jing ascribed to Zhi Qian by Dao’an, because: the extant T556 is a “Mahāyāna” scripture while Dao’an records that the Qi nü jing in his list is from the Abhidharma 阿毘曇; and the extant T556 uses the transcription-translation term 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心 repeatedly, but that term does not appear in any other Zhi Qian work (e.g., he uses the term 無上正眞之道 instead in the 大明度無極經 T225).

Edit

112

 Sakaino argues that the extant Qi nu jing 七女經 (T556, ascribed to Zhi Qian) is the Qi nu jing listed in the new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 of CSZJJ, but not the Qi nu jing ascribed to Zhi Qian by Dao’an, because: the extant T556 is a “Mahayana” scripture while Dao’an records that the Qi nu jing in his list is from the Abhidharma 阿毘曇; and the extant T556 uses the transcription-translation term 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心 repeatedly, but that term does not appear in any other Zhi Qian work (e.g., he uses the term 無上正眞之道 instead in the 大明度無極經 T225). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0556; 佛說七女經

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

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. T0561; *Mahalalika-pariprccha-sutra, *Mahallika-pariprccha-sutra(?); 佛說老母經

Sakaino claims the following about the Lao nüren jing 老女人經 [T559]: The Lao nüren jing is the first translation of the same text as the Lao mu jing 老母經 T561. Although CSZJJ records that Dao’an stated that the Lao nüren jing was from the Abhidharma 阿毘曇, the extant text is clearly a“Mahāyāna” text. Sakaino further claims that the extant Lao nüren jing is probably the work of *Lokakṣema, not of Zhi Qian. There are a number of confusions regarding ascriptions among the translation works of *Lokakṣema, Zhi Qian and Dharmarakṣa, even in Dao’an and Sengyou, and this Lao nüren jing is probably one such case. As *Lokakṣema was probably the person who introduced Amitābha worship to China and first used Amituo 阿彌陀 as the Chinese name for Amitābha, it is plausible that he was the translator of T559. According to Sakaino, the use of 墮舍羅 for Vaiśāli also indicates that *Lokakṣema was the translator.

Edit

113-114

 Sakaino claims the following about the Lao nuren jing 老女人經 [T559]: The Lao nuren jing is the first translation of the same text as the Lao mu jing 老母經 T561. Although CSZJJ records that Dao’an stated that the Lao nuren jing was from the Abhidharma 阿毘曇, the extant text is clearly a“Mahayana” text. Sakaino further claims that the extant Lao nuren jing is probably the work of *Lokaksema, not of Zhi Qian. There are a number of confusions regarding ascriptions among the translation works of *Lokaksema, Zhi Qian and Dharmaraksa, even in Dao’an and Sengyou, and this Lao nuren jing is probably one such case. As *Lokaksema was probably the person who introduced Amitabha worship to China and first used Amituo 阿彌陀 as the Chinese name for Amitabha, it is plausible that he was the translator of T559. According to Sakaino, the use of 墮舍羅 for Vaisali also indicates that *Lokaksema was the translator. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0559; *Mahalalika-pariprccha-sutra, *Mahallika-pariprccha-sutra(?); 佛說老女人經

Sakaino affirms that the Benye jing 本業經 [Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 T281] is probably Zhi Qian’s work, based on the names given to deities 諸天.

Edit

115

 Sakaino affirms that the Benye jing 本業經 [Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 T281] is probably Zhi Qian’s work, based on the names given to deities 諸天. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0281; 佛說菩薩本業經

Sakaino affirms that the Muduo shuxia siwei shi'er yinyuan jing 貝多樹下思惟十二因縁經 [T713] and the Ruiying benqi jing 瑞應本起經 [太子瑞應本起經 T185] are Zhi Qian’s works, as indicated by the vocabulary (e.g., the use of 名像 for ナーマルーパ [nāmarūpa]).

Edit

117-119

 Sakaino affirms that the Muduo shuxia siwei shi'er yinyuan jing 貝多樹下思惟十二因縁經 [T713] and the Ruiying benqi jing 瑞應本起經 [太子瑞應本起經 T185] are Zhi Qian’s works, as indicated by the vocabulary (e.g., the use of 名像 for ナーマルーハ [namarupa]). Zhi Qian 支謙 T0185; 太子瑞應本起經 T0713; 聞城譬經; 貝多樹下思惟十二因緣經

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 maintains that the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經, traditionally ascribed to An Shigao [T729], is probably Dharmaraksa’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). Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0729; Fenbie pinfu shan'e suoqi jing 分別貧富善惡所起經; Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經; 佛說分別善惡所起經

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 claims that although the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [T453 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] 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 Dharmaraksa), in all the text can safely be regarded as the work of Dharmaraksa. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0453; 佛說彌勒下生經

Sakaino claims that the San pin dizi jing 三品弟子經 [T767 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is not the work of Zhi Qian. He bases his judgement on the terminology of the text. For example, it uses transliterated terms frequently, such as 拘舎羅, etc. According to Sakaino, the text may be Dharmarakṣa’s work, but there is no decisive evidence for that.

Edit

128

Sakaino claims that the San pin dizi jing 三品弟子經 [T767 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is not the work of Zhi Qian. He bases his judgement on the terminology of the text. For example, it uses transliterated terms frequently, such as 拘舎羅, etc. According to Sakaino, the text may be Dharmaraksa’s work, but there is no decisive evidence for that. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0767; 佛說三品弟子經; Dizi xue you san bei jing 弟子學有三輩經

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 the Bimoshi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 [T67 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is Dharmaraksa’s translation, because it uses the term yuai 愚騃 instead of yuyi 愚疑. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0067; Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 弊魔試目連經

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

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. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0020; 阿拔經; Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿跋經; 阿拔摩納經; Ambattha-sutra; 佛開解梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿颰經

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 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 *Lokaksema instead, based on the vocabulary it uses (for example, 堕舎利 or 維舎利 for Vaisali). *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0144; 佛說大愛道般泥洹經

Sakaino states that the ascription of the Xiao dao [di] jing 小道經 [小道地經 T608 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜] to Zhi Yao was first given by LDSBJ, and that the catalogue of archaic alternative translations 古異經錄 in Dao’an’s catalogue contains a note stating: 道地經中要語章一卷(或云小道地經今有此經) (T2145 [LV] 15b21). Dao’an classifies the text as anonymous.

Edit

861

 Sakaino states that the ascription of the Xiao dao [di] jing 小道經 [小道地經 T608 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜] to Zhi Yao was first given by LDSBJ, and that the catalogue of archaic alternative translations 古異經錄 in Dao’an’s catalogue contains a note stating: 道地經中要語章一卷(或云小道地經今有此經) (T2145 [LV] 15b21). Dao’an classifies the text as anonymous. T0608; 道地經中要語章; 小道地經

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 initial translation of the *Vibhasa 鞞婆沙論 (T1547 ascribed to *Sanghavarman 僧伽跋澄) was completed in Jianyuan 建元 19 (383), but it was far from a full translation of the entire text. *Sanghadeva and Fahe 法和 re-translated the text. *Sanghavarman 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 *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26, GSZ, and the introduction 巻首 to T1547 itself. T1547; 鞞婆沙論

Sakaino rejects the ascription of the Weiri za nan jing 惟日雜難經 [T760] to Zhi Qian, and claims that probably it is the work of *Lokakṣema. He reasons for this claim can be summarizes as follows:

The title Weiriza nan jing 惟日雜難經 should have been written Weiyueza nan jing 惟曰雜難經. The fact that LDSBJ writes Weiyueza nan jing 惟越雜難經 supports the likelihood that the character yue 曰 was originally used, not ri 日. Sakaino also claims that the za 雜 in 惟日雜 is a mistaken form of li 離 (128), and the resulting word weiyueli 惟曰離 is a variation of the transliteration weiyueluo 惟曰羅 (for *vāipulya 方等) (105-106). Furthermore, the character nan 難 in the word weiyuelinan 惟曰離難 [惟日雜難 with 日雜 replaced by 曰離] is a phonetic variant 轉訛 of 離. Thus, the real title of this text may well have been simply Weiyueli jing 惟曰離經. This strongly suggests that T760 is the work of *Lokakṣema, not Zhi Qian.

Thus, although this scripture has been ascribed to Zhi Qian since LDSBJ, it is unlikely to be his work. Sakaino states that there are also other reasons to reject the ascription to Zhi Qian, including the fact that the text uses transliterated words for the four fruits of arhatship (“four kinds of śrāvaka) 四種聲聞. However, Sakaino admits that there is a possibility that the text is actually the work of An Shigao rather than *Lokakṣema, since the transcription Sheli 舎利 is used for Śāriputra in the text. This transcription is frequent in An Shigao, but never used by *Lokakṣema.

Edit

105-106, 128

 Sakaino rejects the ascription of the Weiri za nan jing 惟日雜難經 [T760] to Zhi Qian, and claims that probably it is the work of *Lokaksema. He reasons for this claim can be summarizes as follows: The title Weiriza nan jing 惟日雜難經 should have been written Weiyueza nan jing 惟曰雜難經. The fact that LDSBJ writes Weiyueza nan jing 惟越雜難經 supports the likelihood that the character yue 曰 was originally used, not ri 日. Sakaino also claims that the za 雜 in 惟日雜 is a mistaken form of li 離 (128), and the resulting word weiyueli 惟曰離 is a variation of the transliteration weiyueluo 惟曰羅 (for *vaipulya 方等) (105-106). Furthermore, the character nan 難 in the word weiyuelinan 惟曰離難 [惟日雜難 with 日雜 replaced by 曰離] is a phonetic variant 轉訛 of 離. Thus, the real title of this text may well have been simply Weiyueli jing 惟曰離經. This strongly suggests that T760 is the work of *Lokaksema, not Zhi Qian. Thus, although this scripture has been ascribed to Zhi Qian since LDSBJ, it is unlikely to be his work. Sakaino states that there are also other reasons to reject the ascription to Zhi Qian, including the fact that the text uses transliterated words for the four fruits of arhatship (“four kinds of sravaka) 四種聲聞. However, Sakaino admits that there is a possibility that the text is actually the work of An Shigao rather than *Lokaksema, since the transcription Sheli 舎利 is used for Sariputra in the text. This transcription is frequent in An Shigao, but never used by *Lokaksema. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0760; Weiri za na jing; Weiyue nan jing 惟曰難經; 惟日雜難經; Weiyueza nan jing 惟曰雜難經, Weiyueza nan jing 惟越雜難經

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 差摩竭經 [cf. 菩薩生地經 T533 ascribed to Zhi Qian ---MR] is probably the work of Dharmaraksa, 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 *Lokaksema, Sakaino adds, but in any case there are no characteristics of Zhi Qian in the text. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0533; 菩薩生地經; Ksemankara-sutra; 差摩竭經

Sakaino argues that the 月明童子經 [cf. 月明菩薩經 T169 ---MR] is likely to be the work of *Lokakṣema, not of Zhi Qian. The reasons he offers are mostly related to terminology. For example, the terms 尼摩羅天 and 魔天 do not appear in any of Zhi Qian’s works, but they actually are shortened forms of terms used elsewhere by *Lokakṣema. In addition, the name Amituo 阿彌陀 also appears in the text, which Zhi Qian never used, but which *Lokakṣema used first.

Edit

124-128

Sakaino argues that the 月明童子經 [cf. 月明菩薩經 T169 ---MR] is likely to be the work of *Lokaksema, not of Zhi Qian. The reasons he offers are mostly related to terminology. For example, the terms 尼摩羅天 and 魔天 do not appear in any of Zhi Qian’s works, but they actually are shortened forms of terms used elsewhere by *Lokaksema. In addition, the name Amituo 阿彌陀 also appears in the text, which Zhi Qian never used, but which *Lokaksema used first. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0169; 月明菩薩經

The Asheshi wang nü Ashuda pusa jing 阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經 T337 was listed by Sengyou as three different texts, namely 阿述達經, 阿闍貰王女經, and 無憂施經. KYL corrected this mistake.

Edit

193-194

 The Asheshi wang nu Ashuda pusa jing 阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經 T337 was listed by Sengyou as three different texts, namely 阿述達經, 阿闍貰王女經, and 無憂施經. KYL corrected this mistake. T0337; 佛說阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經

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

 The *Bhadrakalpika-sutra 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. T0425; 賢劫經

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 points out that the ascription of the Ugrapariprccha 郁伽長者經 in the Ratnakuta 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T310(19); Ratnakuta 大寶積經, Ugrapariprccha 郁伽長者會

The 無量壽經連義述文賛贊 T1748 by Gyeongheung 憬興 ascribes the 無量壽經 T360 to Dharmarakṣa, but without any real basis.

Edit

246

 The 無量壽經連義述文賛贊 T1748 by Gyeongheung 憬興 ascribes the 無量壽經 T360 to Dharmaraksa, but without any real basis. T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra

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

 According to Sakaino, the translation of the Larger Prajnaparamita 放光般若經 T221 (ascribed to *Moksala 無羅叉) was completed at 倉垣水南寺 in Yuankang 元康 1 (291), with *Moksala “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 *Moksala. [Sakaino sounds very much like he bases his discussion on CSZJJ, but he does not explicitly say so --- AI.] *Moksala, 無羅叉, 無叉羅 Zhu Faji 竺法寂 Zhu Shulan 竺尗蘭, 竺叔蘭, Zhu Fashu 竺法寂, 竺法叔 T0221; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 放光般若經

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

 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 Astasahasrikaprajnaparamita 大明度經 T225 ascribed to Zhi Qian T0225; 大明度經

Sakaino claims that the ascription of the extant 雜譬喩経 [舊雜譬喩經 T206 ] to Kang Senghui 康僧會 is questionable, without giving any concrete reasons.

Edit

238

Sakaino claims that the ascription of the extant 雜譬喩経 [舊雜譬喩經 T206 ] to Kang Senghui 康僧會 is questionable, without giving any concrete reasons. T0206; 舊雜譬喻經

On Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (which Sakaino reconstructs *Saṁghavarman), Sakaino makes the following claims: GSZ states that four texts are to be ascribed to Kang Sengkai. It is unknown which four texts this refers to. KYL lists three titles (an Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經, cf. T310(19), a Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經, cf. T360, and a Karma in four recitations 四分雜羯磨, cf. T1432), and LDSBJ lists two. However, Sakaino claims that those ascriptions are unreliable.

Edit

241, 243-247

On Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (which Sakaino reconstructs *Samghavarman), Sakaino makes the following claims: GSZ states that four texts are to be ascribed to Kang Sengkai. It is unknown which four texts this refers to. KYL lists three titles (an Ugrapariprccha 郁伽長者所問經, cf. T310(19), a Sukhavativyuha 無量壽經, cf. T360, and a Karma in four recitations 四分雜羯磨, cf. T1432), and LDSBJ lists two. However, Sakaino claims that those ascriptions are unreliable. T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra T1432; 曇無德律部雜羯磨 T310(19); Ratnakuta 大寶積經, Ugrapariprccha 郁伽長者會

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

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-dharani-sutra) 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. T1013; Anantamukhanirhara-dharani; 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經; Muqu jing 目佉經

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

 A Banzhou sanmei jing 本般舟三味經 in one juan is ascribed to *Lokaksema 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 *Lokaksema 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 *Lokaksema were involved, the former handling the text 執本, and the latter as oral translator 傳語. Sakaino also mentions the possibility that *Lokaksema 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” Prajnaparamita 般若鈔經 [cf. 摩訶般若鈔經 T226 ascribed to 曇摩蜱譯 and 竺佛念] and the Astasahasrika prajnaparamita 道行般若經 (T224 ascribed to *Lokaksema). Sakaino maintains that both T417 and T418 should be *Lokaksema’s works, but revised by Dharmaraksa. 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: nirvana: 涅槃 T417, 泥洹 418; yaksa: 夜叉 T417, 閲叉 418; and kimnara: 甄陀羅 T417, 眞陀羅 418. 涅槃 for nirvana in T417 appears odd, as *Lokaksema always used 泥洹, but it is [according to Sakaino – MR] explicable if Dharmaraksa later revised the text. For kimnara, *Lokaksema uses mostly 甄陀羅 or 甄陀, very rarely 眞陀羅. Dharmaraksa uniformly used 眞陀羅. Many other words are, according to Sakaino, used by both *Lokaksema and Dharmaraksa, 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 *Lokaksema’s work [sic—it also appears in the “Larger” Prajnaparamita 放光般若經 T221 ascribed to Mokasala 無羅叉, and some other texts in the PP line; scattered in small concentrations in some other works ascribed to Dharmaraksa, e.g. T263, T266, T323, T342, T378, T401, T433, T598, T810, T811; and outside Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa was the oral translator for Lokaksema, which is chronologically impossible. In addition, CSZJJ comments on the Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa. The ascription of a Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 in three juan to Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa as lost, while ascribing the three juan Banzhou sanmei jing to *Lokaksema. Sakaino points out that as no catalogues before KYL record the three juan version ascribed to *Lokaksema. Probably Zhisheng mistook the three-juan version he saw for *Lokaksema’s work, while simultaneously classifying Dharmaraksa’s version as lost, overlooking the record of the three-juan version ascribed to Dharmaraksa 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 *Lokaksema 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てある). According to Sakaino, the fact that the translation year is the same indicates that Zhu Shuofo and *Lokaksema 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 Dharmaraksa should be the extant T418, since it has never been recorded as lost (except in KYL). Sakaino infers that T418 is Dharmaraksa’s revision of the two juan version ascribed to Zhu Shuofo (with *Lokaksema as the oral translator), which explains why Dharmaraksa’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 *Lokaksema, T417, should also have been revised by Dharmaraksa. T0418; 般舟三昧經

Sakaino states the following (273): CSZJJ lists only the Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經 (not extant) as the work of Bo Fazu 白法祖. LDSBJ ascribes 23 titles in 25 juan to him, which KYL reduced to 16 titles 18 juan by excising offshoot or byproduct scriptures 別生. The titles Dizi ben 弟子本 and Wu bu seng 五部僧 are mentioned in GSZ, but it is not known exactly which texts they referred to. Sakaino quotes a passage in LDSBJ, 高僧傳(止)云祖出一經。然其所出諸經遭世擾攘名録罕存。莫紀其實 [T2034 (XLIX) 66b18-b19], and criticizes this statement, pointing out that GSZ says three scriptures 三部經, not just one scripture 一經, and that the issue is rather the odd names given for two of those three scriptures.

According to Sakaino, the 23 titles LDSBJ ascribes to Bo Fazu can be classified into the following 3 categories, excluding the Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經 (273-275).

1) 8 titles, all of which are also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (listed, 274). The number of juan often differs between the ascription to Bo Fazu and that to Dharmarakṣa, but Sakaino asserts that it is plain that Fei reused those titles of works of Dharmarakṣa as works of Bo Fazu as well. (This is therefore part of a wider pattern, which Sakaino also observes elsewhere for the corpora ascribed to other translators, where contiguous chunks of CSZJJ lists are re-used in LDSBJ as the basis for arbitrary new ascriptions to a single figure.) Especially, the word fanzhi 梵志 in the title Chixin fanzhi jing 持心梵志經 is clearly a copyist’s error for fantian 梵天 in the Chixin fantian jing 持心梵天經 (Chixin fantian suowen jing 持心梵天所問經), and such an error makes it even more plausible that those titles were just taken from somewhere and arbitrarily attributed to Bo Fazu.

2) 10 titles found elsewhere in CSZJJ (presented on p. 274). 8 titles out of the 10 are listed in Sengyou’s new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯經錄, the majority of which are related to tongzi/māṇava 童子 (童子經類). [Sakaino seems to overlook the 佛問四童子經 in this group, thus the above numbers should be “9 titles out of 11”, not “8 titles out of 10” -- AI ]. Fei apparently took them from the group of tongzi scriptures 童子經 and allocated them to Bo Fazu, creating the impression that Bo Fazu translated many scriptures related to tongzi. Sakaino also claims that it is not a coincidence that both the Dai’aidao [jing] 大愛道 (cf. T144) and the Shouda jing 首達經 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄.

3) 3 titles, viz., the Da fangdeng rulai jing 大方等如来經, the Wuliang po mo tuoluoni jing 無量破魔陀羅尼經, and the Tan chi tuoluoni jing 檀持陀羅尼經. The sources from which these ascriptions were taken are not known (275).

Sakaino concludes: All of Fei’s new ascriptions of 22 titles to Bo Fazu in LDSBJ must be fabrications, or based on unreliable sources. It is still plausible that Bo Fazu was taught by Bo Yan 白延, because they were near contemporaries and Bo Yan was the only person named 白 who brought the Buddhism of Kutsi/Kuci(na)/Küsen 龜玆 to China (275). However, this implies that no ascriptions carried to Bo Fazu carried today in T are accurate. This entry is associated with all ascriptions to Bo Fazu in T.

Edit

273-275

 Sakaino states the following (273): CSZJJ lists only the Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經 (not extant) as the work of Bo Fazu 白法祖. LDSBJ ascribes 23 titles in 25 juan to him, which KYL reduced to 16 titles 18 juan by excising offshoot or byproduct scriptures 別生. The titles Dizi ben 弟子本 and Wu bu seng 五部僧 are mentioned in GSZ, but it is not known exactly which texts they referred to. Sakaino quotes a passage in LDSBJ, 高僧傳(止)云祖出一經。然其所出諸經遭世擾攘名録罕存。莫紀其實 [T2034 (XLIX) 66b18-b19], and criticizes this statement, pointing out that GSZ says three scriptures 三部經, not just one scripture 一經, and that the issue is rather the odd names given for two of those three scriptures. According to Sakaino, the 23 titles LDSBJ ascribes to Bo Fazu can be classified into the following 3 categories, excluding the Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經 (273-275). 1) 8 titles, all of which are also ascribed to Dharmaraksa (listed, 274). The number of juan often differs between the ascription to Bo Fazu and that to Dharmaraksa, but Sakaino asserts that it is plain that Fei reused those titles of works of Dharmaraksa as works of Bo Fazu as well. (This is therefore part of a wider pattern, which Sakaino also observes elsewhere for the corpora ascribed to other translators, where contiguous chunks of CSZJJ lists are re-used in LDSBJ as the basis for arbitrary new ascriptions to a single figure.) Especially, the word fanzhi 梵志 in the title Chixin fanzhi jing 持心梵志經 is clearly a copyist’s error for fantian 梵天 in the Chixin fantian jing 持心梵天經 (Chixin fantian suowen jing 持心梵天所問經), and such an error makes it even more plausible that those titles were just taken from somewhere and arbitrarily attributed to Bo Fazu. 2) 10 titles found elsewhere in CSZJJ (presented on p. 274). 8 titles out of the 10 are listed in Sengyou’s new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯經錄, the majority of which are related to tongzi/manava 童子 (童子經類). [Sakaino seems to overlook the 佛問四童子經 in this group, thus the above numbers should be “9 titles out of 11”, not “8 titles out of 10” -- AI ]. Fei apparently took them from the group of tongzi scriptures 童子經 and allocated them to Bo Fazu, creating the impression that Bo Fazu translated many scriptures related to tongzi. Sakaino also claims that it is not a coincidence that both the Dai’aidao [jing] 大愛道 (cf. T144) and the Shouda jing 首達經 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄. 3) 3 titles, viz., the Da fangdeng rulai jing 大方等如来經, the Wuliang po mo tuoluoni jing 無量破魔陀羅尼經, and the Tan chi tuoluoni jing 檀持陀羅尼經. The sources from which these ascriptions were taken are not known (275). Sakaino concludes: All of Fei’s new ascriptions of 22 titles to Bo Fazu in LDSBJ must be fabrications, or based on unreliable sources. It is still plausible that Bo Fazu was taught by Bo Yan 白延, because they were near contemporaries and Bo Yan was the only person named 白 who brought the Buddhism of Kutsi/Kuci(na)/Kusen 龜玆 to China (275). However, this implies that no ascriptions carried to Bo Fazu carried today in T are accurate. This entry is associated with all ascriptions to Bo Fazu in T. T0005; 佛般泥洹經 T0144; 佛說大愛道般泥洹經 T0330; Zhangzhe weishi jing, 長者威勢經; Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經; 佛說菩薩修行經; Viradattapariprccha T0528; 佛說菩薩逝經; 菩薩逝經; Shi jing 逝經 T0777; 佛說賢者五福德經; Wu fude jing 五福德經

Sakaino argues that the extant 般若波羅蜜多鈔經 T226 should not be ascribed to Tanmopi 曇摩蜱 (*Dharmapriya?), as in traditional catalogues, on grounds of the record in earlier catalogues. His main arguments are as follows:

Sengyou records a 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 in 5 juan (T2145 [LV] 10b1-4), stating that *Dharmapriya “handled the Western text of the Larger [Prajñāpāramitā] 曇摩蜱執胡大品本 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 did the translation work 譯出. Dao’an wrote a preface to this scripture. It was Zhisheng who misunderstood this 波羅密經抄 as the extant 波羅蜜鈔經, whereas in fact, the 摩訶鈢羅若波羅密經抄 ascribed to *Dharmapriya had long been lost. Sakaino adds that he discusses this 般若波羅蜜多鈔經 elsewhere in his book, without specifying where.

Edit

220-221

 Sakaino argues that the extant 般若波羅蜜多鈔經 T226 should not be ascribed to Tanmopi 曇摩蜱 (*Dharmapriya?), as in traditional catalogues, on grounds of the record in earlier catalogues. His main arguments are as follows: Sengyou records a 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 in 5 juan (T2145 [LV] 10b1-4), stating that *Dharmapriya “handled the Western text of the Larger [Prajnaparamita] 曇摩蜱執胡大品本 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 did the translation work 譯出. Dao’an wrote a preface to this scripture. It was Zhisheng who misunderstood this 波羅密經抄 as the extant 波羅蜜鈔經, whereas in fact, the 摩訶鈢羅若波羅密經抄 ascribed to *Dharmapriya had long been lost. Sakaino adds that he discusses this 般若波羅蜜多鈔經 elsewhere in his book, without specifying where. T0226; 摩訶般若鈔經; Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄

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

 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0514; 佛說諫王經; 大小諫王經

According to Sakaino, Sengyou states of the title Da bannihuan jing 大般泥洹經 that according to Doa'an, it is taken from DĀ, but adds a note of his own that it is different from the DĀ of his own time 安公云出長阿含祐案今長阿含與此異 [T2145 (LV) 6c15]. Sakaino supposes that the Da bannihuan jing that Sengyou saw was different from the Da bannihuan jing that Dao’an listed, since Dao’an appears to refer to the Nihuan jing 泥洹經 of "hīnayāna", while Sengyou probably was talking about a Mahāyāna text. Sakaino then claims that Dao’an was right and the extant anonymous Nihuan jing [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 般泥洹經 T6 in 2 juan classified as anonymous --- AI] should be the one ascribed to Zhi Qian [by Dao’an], pointing out also that there is no anonymous Nihuan jing listed in Dao’an or Sengyou (144).

Sakaino further states that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖 (2 juan) (T5), as well as T6, should be re-ascribed to Zhi Qian, claiming that these two texts must have been translated by the same person. A Zhi Qian version of MPNS was listed in traditional catalogues since CSZJJ. The Da bannihuan jing 大般泥洹經 ascribed to Zhi Qian in Dao’an’s catalogue should be either T5 or T6 (550-551).

Sakaino then offers the following comparisons of the translation terms for three sets of words used in T5 and/or T6, and other sources, mostly other texts ascribed to Zhi Qian:

Comparison of the terms for the heavens in the three realms (kāma-, rūpa-, and ārūpyadhātu) 三界諸天 used today, and those found in T5, T6, and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 大明度[經] T225, ascribed to Zhi Qian, e.g., 兜率天/兜術天, 梵衆天, etc. (listed 555-557): [The commonality of terms used in all three texts is obvious for Sakaino, but] he holds that, the terms in T5 are slightly closer to those in T225 than those in T6. He comments that it must have been quite common for a translator to use different words to translate the same word, especially in the early periods when there were few fixed translation words to use (555-558).

Comparison of the terms for the “eightfold celestial assembly” 八部衆 used today, and in T225, T6, and the 私訶昧經 (私呵昧經, T532, also ascribed to Zhi Qian) (listed p. 560): Sakaino asserts that the term 質諒神, which is used in T225, T6, and T532, is never used by any translators other than Zhi Qian (560). [NOTE: electronic searching shows that Sakaino was not quite right in this surmise, because 質諒神 also appears in T152, T228 and T769 --- MR.]

Comparison of the terms for the twelvefold categorisation of canonical texts 十二文教 used today, and those in the 七知經 T27, ascribed to Zhi Qian and T6, such as 長行/文, 重頌/歌, etc (listed p. 561): Those used in T6 and in T27 match very well, which Sakaino claims to be another piece of evidence showing that T6 was translated by Zhi Qian (560-562).

Sakaino maintains that the reason that Zhi Qian translated MPNS twice is that he obtained a new original text after translating T5, and revised it according to that new original. Sakaino presents quotations from T5 and T6 to illustrate this point. Especially for the verse he quotes, Sakaino asserts that nobody would disagree that the verse in T6 is the revision of the corresponding verse in T5 (562-565).

Edit

144, 555-565

According to Sakaino, Sengyou states of the title Da bannihuan jing 大般泥洹經 that according to Doa'an, it is taken from DA, but adds a note of his own that it is different from the DA of his own time 安公云出長阿含祐案今長阿含與此異 [T2145 (LV) 6c15]. Sakaino supposes that the Da bannihuan jing that Sengyou saw was different from the Da bannihuan jing that Dao’an listed, since Dao’an appears to refer to the Nihuan jing 泥洹經 of "hinayana", while Sengyou probably was talking about a Mahayana text. Sakaino then claims that Dao’an was right and the extant anonymous Nihuan jing [Mahaparinirvana-sutra 般泥洹經 T6 in 2 juan classified as anonymous --- AI] should be the one ascribed to Zhi Qian [by Dao’an], pointing out also that there is no anonymous Nihuan jing listed in Dao’an or Sengyou (144). Sakaino further states that the Mahaparinirvana-sutra 佛般泥洹經 ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖 (2 juan) (T5), as well as T6, should be re-ascribed to Zhi Qian, claiming that these two texts must have been translated by the same person. A Zhi Qian version of MPNS was listed in traditional catalogues since CSZJJ. The Da bannihuan jing 大般泥洹經 ascribed to Zhi Qian in Dao’an’s catalogue should be either T5 or T6 (550-551). Sakaino then offers the following comparisons of the translation terms for three sets of words used in T5 and/or T6, and other sources, mostly other texts ascribed to Zhi Qian: Comparison of the terms for the heavens in the three realms (kama-, rupa-, and arupyadhatu) 三界諸天 used today, and those found in T5, T6, and the Astasahasrika prajnaparamita 大明度[經] T225, ascribed to Zhi Qian, e.g., 兜率天/兜術天, 梵衆天, etc. (listed 555-557): [The commonality of terms used in all three texts is obvious for Sakaino, but] he holds that, the terms in T5 are slightly closer to those in T225 than those in T6. He comments that it must have been quite common for a translator to use different words to translate the same word, especially in the early periods when there were few fixed translation words to use (555-558). Comparison of the terms for the “eightfold celestial assembly” 八部衆 used today, and in T225, T6, and the 私訶昧經 (私呵昧經, T532, also ascribed to Zhi Qian) (listed p. 560): Sakaino asserts that the term 質諒神, which is used in T225, T6, and T532, is never used by any translators other than Zhi Qian (560). [NOTE: electronic searching shows that Sakaino was not quite right in this surmise, because 質諒神 also appears in T152, T228 and T769 --- MR.] Comparison of the terms for the twelvefold categorisation of canonical texts 十二文教 used today, and those in the 七知經 T27, ascribed to Zhi Qian and T6, such as 長行/文, 重頌/歌, etc (listed p. 561): Those used in T6 and in T27 match very well, which Sakaino claims to be another piece of evidence showing that T6 was translated by Zhi Qian (560-562). Sakaino maintains that the reason that Zhi Qian translated MPNS twice is that he obtained a new original text after translating T5, and revised it according to that new original. Sakaino presents quotations from T5 and T6 to illustrate this point. Especially for the verse he quotes, Sakaino asserts that nobody would disagree that the verse in T6 is the revision of the corresponding verse in T5 (562-565). Zhi Qian 支謙 T0006; 般泥洹經

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 argues that that the Sukhavativyuha 無量壽經 T360 should be attributed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢 (whose name still appears in this form in the present Taisho 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 Sukhavativyuha 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 *Lokaksema should be re-ascribed to Dharmaraksa; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokaksema; 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 Sukhavativyuha” 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 *Buddhavatamsaka 華嚴經 T278 ascribed to Buddhabhadra. There is another “New Sukhavativyuha” 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. Baoyun, 寶雲 Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra

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 Saṁghadeva. 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).

Edit

224-228

 The *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikagama 増一阿含 T125: Sakaino argues that the ascription of the *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikagama 増一阿含 T125 to *Sanghadeva 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 *Madhyamagama and the *Ekottarikagama 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 Sanghadeva went to Luoyang 洛陽 and the *Ekottarikagama was there revised by Samghadeva. T26 was retranslated from a different original text when Sanghadeva went to south. This version is the *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26 extant today. The chief translator 譯主 was *Sangharaksa 僧伽羅叉, and *Sanghadeva worked as the interpreter/oral translator 傳語. Little is known about this Sangharaksa. KYL is incorrect in recording that Sanghadeva retranslated the*Ekottarikagama as well as the Madhyamagama. The *Ekottarikagama was probably revised without discarding the initial translation of *Dharmanandi(n). Thus, the extant T125 should be ascribed to *Dharmanandi(n). *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 Sangharaksa, 僧伽羅叉, 衆護 T0026; 中阿含經; Madhyama-agama

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

 Sakaino states that the Xianzai Fo ming jing 現在佛名經 (not extant) ascribed to Gunabhadra 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. Xianzai Fo ming jing 現在佛名經

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

 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. T0234; 佛說濡首菩薩無上清淨分衛經; Jueliao zhufa ru huanhua sanmei jing 決了諸法如幻化三昧經 T0345; 慧上菩薩問大善權經 T0474; 佛說維摩詰經 T0778; 佛說菩薩內習六波羅蜜經

According to Sakaino, Sengyou listed the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145 twice, once ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 (no such ascription is carried by any such text in the present canon), with the alternate title Da’aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 (cf. T144), and again as an anonymous scripture in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯. Sakaino claims that the latter entry was a mistake. LDSBJ ascribes a single title, Fo mu bannihuan jing, to Juqu Jingsheng, and also to Bo Fazu 白法祖, with the alternate title Da’aidao bannihuan jing. [Sakaino stops here but he asserts elsewhere (551-552) that the ascription of 大愛道般泥洹經 (T144) to 白法祖 is groundless. Sakaino also rejects the ascription of T145 to Huijian 慧簡 as one of Fei’s baseless new ascriptions of titles taken from Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯 (546-548) ---AI.]

Edit

870-871

According to Sakaino, Sengyou listed the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145 twice, once ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 (no such ascription is carried by any such text in the present canon), with the alternate title Da’aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 (cf. T144), and again as an anonymous scripture in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯. Sakaino claims that the latter entry was a mistake. LDSBJ ascribes a single title, Fo mu bannihuan jing, to Juqu Jingsheng, and also to Bo Fazu 白法祖, with the alternate title Da’aidao bannihuan jing. [Sakaino stops here but he asserts elsewhere (551-552) that the ascription of 大愛道般泥洹經 (T144) to 白法祖 is groundless. Sakaino also rejects the ascription of T145 to Huijian 慧簡 as one of Fei’s baseless new ascriptions of titles taken from Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯 (546-548) ---AI.] Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0145; 佛母般泥洹經

Sakaino claims that the extant Shou xin sui jing 受新歳經 T61 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is not Dharmarakṣa’s work. The title was probably confused with the Shou sui jing 受歳經 T50.

Edit

174

 Sakaino claims that the extant Shou xin sui jing 受新歳經 T61 ascribed to Dharmaraksa is not Dharmaraksa’s work. The title was probably confused with the Shou sui jing 受歳經 T50. T0061; 受新歲經

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

 A Banzhou sanmei jing 本般舟三味經 in one juan is ascribed to *Lokaksema 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 *Lokaksema 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 *Lokaksema were involved, the former handling the text 執本, and the latter as oral translator 傳語. Sakaino also mentions the possibility that *Lokaksema 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” Prajnaparamita 般若鈔經 [cf. 摩訶般若鈔經 T226 ascribed to 曇摩蜱譯 and 竺佛念] and the Astasahasrika prajnaparamita 道行般若經 (T224 ascribed to *Lokaksema). Sakaino maintains that both T417 and T418 should be *Lokaksema’s works, but revised by Dharmaraksa. 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: nirvana: 涅槃 T417, 泥洹 418; yaksa: 夜叉 T417, 閲叉 418; and kimnara: 甄陀羅 T417, 眞陀羅 418. 涅槃 for nirvana in T417 appears odd, as *Lokaksema always used 泥洹, but it is [according to Sakaino – MR] explicable if Dharmaraksa later revised the text. For kimnara, *Lokaksema uses mostly 甄陀羅 or 甄陀, very rarely 眞陀羅. Dharmaraksa uniformly used 眞陀羅. Many other words are, according to Sakaino, used by both *Lokaksema and Dharmaraksa, 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 *Lokaksema’s work [sic—it also appears in the “Larger” Prajnaparamita 放光般若經 T221 ascribed to Mokasala 無羅叉, and some other texts in the PP line; scattered in small concentrations in some other works ascribed to Dharmaraksa, e.g. T263, T266, T323, T342, T378, T401, T433, T598, T810, T811; and outside Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa was the oral translator for Lokaksema, which is chronologically impossible. In addition, CSZJJ comments on the Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa. The ascription of a Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 in three juan to Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa as lost, while ascribing the three juan Banzhou sanmei jing to *Lokaksema. Sakaino points out that as no catalogues before KYL record the three juan version ascribed to *Lokaksema. Probably Zhisheng mistook the three-juan version he saw for *Lokaksema’s work, while simultaneously classifying Dharmaraksa’s version as lost, overlooking the record of the three-juan version ascribed to Dharmaraksa 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 *Lokaksema 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てある). According to Sakaino, the fact that the translation year is the same indicates that Zhu Shuofo and *Lokaksema 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 Dharmaraksa should be the extant T418, since it has never been recorded as lost (except in KYL). Sakaino infers that T418 is Dharmaraksa’s revision of the two juan version ascribed to Zhu Shuofo (with *Lokaksema as the oral translator), which explains why Dharmaraksa’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 *Lokaksema, T417, should also have been revised by Dharmaraksa. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛/Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 T0417; Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra; 般舟三昧經

Sakaino states that the Jiu se lu jing 九色鹿經 [九色鹿經 T181 支謙譯] and the Duzi jing 犢子經 T808, both ascribed to Zhi Qian in KYL, are not Zhi Qian’s translations, claiming that it is difficult to see why the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 judged them as Zhi Qian’s, since their style 文體 is clearly not his.

Edit

128-129

 Sakaino states that the Jiu se lu jing 九色鹿經 [九色鹿經 T181 支謙譯] and the Duzi jing 犢子經 T808, both ascribed to Zhi Qian in KYL, are not Zhi Qian’s translations, claiming that it is difficult to see why the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 judged them as Zhi Qian’s, since their style 文體 is clearly not his. T0181; 九色鹿經 T0808; 佛說犢子經

The last two chapters of the Saṅdhinirmocana-sūtra 解深密經 (later retranslated in its entirety by 玄奘), namely, the 地波羅密多品 and the 如来成所作事品, were supposedly translated by Guṇabhadra and entered into the canon as separate texts, respectively the Xiangxu jietuo di boluomi liaoyi jing 相續解脱地波羅密了義經 T678 and the Xiangxu jietuo Rulai suozuo suishun chu liaoyi jing 相續解脱如来所作随順處了義經 T679. Sakaino points out that Guṇabhadra did not know very much Chinese, and that Baoyun 寶雲, who was the interpreter/oral translator, played an important role in translating those scriptures.

Edit

643-644

 The last two chapters of the Sandhinirmocana-sutra 解深密經 (later retranslated in its entirety by 玄奘), namely, the 地波羅密多品 and the 如来成所作事品, were supposedly translated by Gunabhadra and entered into the canon as separate texts, respectively the Xiangxu jietuo di boluomi liaoyi jing 相續解脱地波羅密了義經 T678 and the Xiangxu jietuo Rulai suozuo suishun chu liaoyi jing 相續解脱如来所作随順處了義經 T679. Sakaino points out that Gunabhadra did not know very much Chinese, and that Baoyun 寶雲, who was the interpreter/oral translator, played an important role in translating those scriptures. Baoyun, 寶雲 Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 T0678; 相續解脫地波羅蜜了義經 T0679; 相續解脫如來所作隨順處了義經

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 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0527; 佛說逝童子經 T0528; 佛說菩薩逝經; 菩薩逝經; Shi jing 逝經

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

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 *Lokaksema worked on his Astasahasrika 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, *Lokaksema worked on the text again when the complete version became available. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛/Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 T0224; 道行般若經

Sakaino claims that the Weishengyuan jing 未生怨經 (*Ajātaśatru-sūtra) T507, initially listed in Dao'an's catalogue of Northern Liang scriptures 安公凉土錄 and ascribed to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ, indeed contains some terms that were typically used by Zhi Qian, such as 王舍國雞山 and 如來無所著正眞道最正覺. As for the term 王舍國雞山, Sakaino explains that 王舍國 for 王舍城 and 雞山 for Gṛdhrakūṭa is typically Zhi Qian, while for the same term *Lokakṣema used 王舍城耆闍崛山, and Dharmarakṣa used mostly the same 王舍城耆闍崛山 following *Lokakṣema or occasionally 王舍城靈鷲山.

Edit

131

 Sakaino claims that the Weishengyuan jing 未生怨經 (*Ajatasatru-sutra) T507, initially listed in Dao'an's catalogue of Northern Liang scriptures 安公凉土錄 and ascribed to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ, indeed contains some terms that were typically used by Zhi Qian, such as 王舍國雞山 and 如來無所著正眞道最正覺. As for the term 王舍國雞山, Sakaino explains that 王舍國 for 王舍城 and 雞山 for Grdhrakuta is typically Zhi Qian, while for the same term *Lokaksema used 王舍城耆闍崛山, and Dharmaraksa used mostly the same 王舍城耆闍崛山 following *Lokaksema or occasionally 王舍城靈鷲山. T0507; 佛說未生冤經; 未生怨經

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 maintains that all of the ascriptions to *Lokaksema newly given by LDSBJ (or KYL) are groundless [this entry is associated with the extant scriptures ascribed newly to *Lokaksema by Fei, viz., the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 [T204] and the Sukhavativyuha 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 *Lokaksema, besides those ascribed to him in the Taisho, and that he will explain his view in each case of works suspected to be due to *Lokaksema’s, as they arise in his discussions. T0204; 雜譬喻經 T0361; 佛說無量清淨平等覺經

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 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0530; 佛說須摩提長者經

Sakaino maintains that it is not easy to determine whether the Shan'e suoqi jing 善惡所起經 [cf. 分別善惡所起經 T729, ascribed to An Shigao] is the work of Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa, but it is slightly more likely to be Dharmarakṣa’s, judging from the style and the use of terms such as diyu 地獄 , nili 泥犁, and Taishan 太山, which also appear in the 修行道地經 T606 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.

Edit

132

 Sakaino maintains that it is not easy to determine whether the Shan'e suoqi jing 善惡所起經 [cf. 分別善惡所起經 T729, ascribed to An Shigao] is the work of Zhi Qian or Dharmaraksa, but it is slightly more likely to be Dharmaraksa’s, judging from the style and the use of terms such as diyu 地獄 , nili 泥犁, and Taishan 太山, which also appear in the 修行道地經 T606 ascribed to Dharmaraksa. T0729; Fenbie pinfu shan'e suoqi jing 分別貧富善惡所起經; Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經; 佛說分別善惡所起經

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 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. Gengchu Asheshi wang jing 更出阿闍世王經 T0626; 佛說阿闍世王經 T0627; 普超三昧經; 文殊支利普超三昧經; 文殊師利普超三昧經 普超經; 更出阿闍世王經

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

 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 srotaapanna, 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. T0511; 佛說蓱沙王五願經; 弗迦沙王經; 萍沙王五願經

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

 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 *Lokaksema. Sakaino says that the text is indeed *Lokaksema’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 *Lokaksema work this is the main grounds for his reascription of T397(17). *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0760; Weiri za na jing; Weiyue nan jing 惟曰難經; 惟日雜難經; Weiyueza nan jing 惟曰雜難經, Weiyueza nan jing 惟越雜難經 T397(17); Jiaoji jing 校計經; Mingdu wushi jiaoji jing 明度五十校計經; 十方菩薩品; 十方菩薩品, 五十校計經

Sakaino claims that the vocabulary of the Aśokāvadāna 大阿育王經 [阿育王傳, T2042] ascribed to An Faqin 安法欽, is clearly newer than that of the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816, also ascribed to An Faqin. He also points out several terminological oddities in T2042, which include its use of 眞陀羅 (as a transliteration of caṇḍāla 屠者, whereas Dharmarakṣa, whom LDSBJ states was a contemporary of An Faqin, uses the same transcription 眞陀羅 for kinnara). [Sakaino does not say anything clear about the true ascription of T2042. It is not known what source Fei referred to in giving this ascription (there is no 大阿育王經/阿育王傳 in Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄, which Sakaino is otherwise here discussing as a source for many of Fei's new ascriptions) ---AI.]

Sakaino states that LDSBJ is the source of the ascriptions to Tandi (*Dharmasatya?) 曇諦, An Faxian 安法賢, An Faqin and Shengjian 聖堅 in various catalogues [Sakaino seems to suggest that all of those ascriptions, including the ascription of T816 to An Faqin, are groundless 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 claims that the vocabulary of the Asokavadana 大阿育王經 [阿育王傳, T2042] ascribed to An Faqin 安法欽, is clearly newer than that of the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816, also ascribed to An Faqin. He also points out several terminological oddities in T2042, which include its use of 眞陀羅 (as a transliteration of candala 屠者, whereas Dharmaraksa, whom LDSBJ states was a contemporary of An Faqin, uses the same transcription 眞陀羅 for kinnara). [Sakaino does not say anything clear about the true ascription of T2042. It is not known what source Fei referred to in giving this ascription (there is no 大阿育王經/阿育王傳 in Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄, which Sakaino is otherwise here discussing as a source for many of Fei's new ascriptions) ---AI.] Sakaino states that LDSBJ is the source of the ascriptions to Tandi (*Dharmasatya?) 曇諦, An Faxian 安法賢, An Faqin and Shengjian 聖堅 in various catalogues [Sakaino seems to suggest that all of those ascriptions, including the ascription of T816 to An Faqin, are groundless 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). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T2042; 阿育王傳

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

 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 *Lokaksema 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). T0608; 道地經中要語章; 小道地經

Sakaino states that CSZJJ, which he characterises as highly reliable in contrast to LDSBJ, two texts are recorded as related to Yan Fotiao. One is the Fa jing jing 法鏡經 (1 juan) [T322, ascribed in the Taishō to An Xuan 安玄], which it states was translated by An Xuan and Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 in the time of Emperor Ling 靈帝 of the Han (漢靈帝時。沙門嚴佛調都尉安玄共譯出, 6c5-6) (Sakaino also quotes the preface of the法鏡經 in CSZJJ, which states都尉口陳嚴調筆受, 46c5-6). T322 is a Mahāyāna scripture and an alternate translation of the Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者經.

The other title is the Shi hui 十慧 (1 juan), which is characterised as composed 撰 by Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 (十慧是佛調所撰, 6c6).

GSZ records that Yan Fotiao (also Yan Futiao 嚴浮調) was a śramaṇera 沙門, which Sakaino thinks would be odd if he was really Chinese, as the preface to T322 suggests by stating 臨淮嚴浮調.

Edit

90-92

 Sakaino states that CSZJJ, which he characterises as highly reliable in contrast to LDSBJ, two texts are recorded as related to Yan Fotiao. One is the Fa jing jing 法鏡經 (1 juan) [T322, ascribed in the Taisho to An Xuan 安玄], which it states was translated by An Xuan and Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 in the time of Emperor Ling 靈帝 of the Han (漢靈帝時。沙門嚴佛調都尉安玄共譯出, 6c5-6) (Sakaino also quotes the preface of the法鏡經 in CSZJJ, which states都尉口陳嚴調筆受, 46c5-6). T322 is a Mahayana scripture and an alternate translation of the Ugrapariprccha 郁伽長者經. The other title is the Shi hui 十慧 (1 juan), which is characterised as composed 撰 by Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 (十慧是佛調所撰, 6c6). GSZ records that Yan Fotiao (also Yan Futiao 嚴浮調) was a sramanera 沙門, which Sakaino thinks would be odd if he was really Chinese, as the preface to T322 suggests by stating 臨淮嚴浮調. An Xuan, 安玄 Yan Fotiao, 嚴佛調 T0322; Fa jing jing; 法鏡經

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 maintains that the extant Hou chu Amituo Fo jing 後出阿彌陀佛偈 T373 is probably Dharmaraksa’s work, judging from the vocabulary (although he also mentions that there is a small possibility that the text was created from scratch by Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa. 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 *Lokaksema but Sakaino thinks it should be re-ascribed to Dharmaraksa). Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0373; 後出阿彌陀佛偈

A *Nirvaṇa-sūtra 泥洹經 in one juan, ascribed to Guṇabhadra, is listed in CSZJJ. Sakaino claims that this notice is incorrect, and the Nirvāṇa-sūtra 涅槃經 in three juan ascribed to 法顯 [大般涅槃經 T7] is the one that should be attributed to Guṇabhadra. Later catalogues followed CSZJJ in making this mistake.

Edit

633

 A *Nirvana-sutra 泥洹經 in one juan, ascribed to Gunabhadra, is listed in CSZJJ. Sakaino claims that this notice is incorrect, and the Nirvana-sutra 涅槃經 in three juan ascribed to 法顯 [大般涅槃經 T7] is the one that should be attributed to Gunabhadra. Later catalogues followed CSZJJ in making this mistake. Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 T0007; 大般涅槃經

According to Sakaino, Dao’an endorsed twelve texts as the works of *Lokakṣema 支讖, seven of which are extant.

Edit

101-102

 According to Sakaino, Dao’an endorsed twelve texts as the works of *Lokaksema 支讖, seven of which are extant. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0224; 道行般若經 T0280; 佛說兜沙經 T0313; 阿閦佛國經 T0417; Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra; 般舟三昧經 T0418; 般舟三昧經 T0458; 文殊師利問菩薩署經 T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T0807; 佛說內藏百寶經

Sakaino points out that the Shiziyue Fo bensheng jing 師子月佛本生經 [T176, anonymous] was ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ. KYL corrected this mistake and listed the title in the Qin catalogue 秦錄. He also did not accept Fei's note that stated that the text was translated during the Tai'an reign era 太安年譯. Sakaino also notes that KYL claims that the 師子月佛本生經 (T176 ) should be moved to the "catalogue of apocrypha 疑錄, along with the 法社經 .

Edit

174, 195

 Sakaino points out that the Shiziyue Fo bensheng jing 師子月佛本生經 [T176, anonymous] was ascribed to Dharmaraksa by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ. KYL corrected this mistake and listed the title in the Qin catalogue 秦錄. He also did not accept Fei's note that stated that the text was translated during the Tai'an reign era 太安年譯. Sakaino also notes that KYL claims that the 師子月佛本生經 (T176 ) should be moved to the "catalogue of apocrypha 疑錄, along with the 法社經 . Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0176; 師子月佛本生經

Sakaino presents a list of titles that KYL admitted to the canon as the work of Dharmarakṣa, following LDSBJ. Sakaino gives separate lists of fourteen extant titles and thirteen lost titles (177-178) (this entry is associated with extant texts affected by this problem).

Sakaino states that as many as twenty of these titles are clearly taken from Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯經錄 in CSZJJ. He also suggests that the legitimacy of the ascription of the other texts should also be doubted: the lost Saddharmapuṇḍarīka 薩芸芬陀利經 already appeared in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄 in CSZJJ; the lost Xie fa jing 邪法經 and Ku ying jing 苦應經 are likely to be mistakes for the Xie jian jing 邪見經 and the Ku yin jing 苦陰經 respectively, both of which titles appear in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures; the *Ullambana
盂蘭盆經 [T685] is obviously the Yulan jing 盂蘭經 in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures, and; although Zhisheng says "see Dao'an's catalogue and [Fei] Changfang's catalogue" 見道安錄及長房錄 about the lost Ciren wen bashi zhong hao jing 慈仁問八十種好經 and the Sanshi'er xiang yinyuan jing 三十二相因緣經, this line just means that Fei said (wrongly) that those titles were included in Dao’an’s catalogue, but not that Dao’an really ascribed those texts to Dharmarakṣa, since if he had, Sengyou would definitely have included them among Dharmarakṣa’s works, but in fact, he lists the two titles in his “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯經錄.

[Thus, Sakaino leaves just a few titles in the twenty-seven titles which he does not explicitly reject as Dharmarakṣa’s work. However, his tone is fairly negative all the way through the discussion, and it would be much reasonable to assume that he would reject the ascription of those few to Dharmarakṣa as well --- AI.]

Edit

177-179

 Sakaino presents a list of titles that KYL admitted to the canon as the work of Dharmaraksa, following LDSBJ. Sakaino gives separate lists of fourteen extant titles and thirteen lost titles (177-178) (this entry is associated with extant texts affected by this problem). Sakaino states that as many as twenty of these titles are clearly taken from Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯經錄 in CSZJJ. He also suggests that the legitimacy of the ascription of the other texts should also be doubted: the lost Saddharmapundarika 薩芸芬陀利經 already appeared in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄 in CSZJJ; the lost Xie fa jing 邪法經 and Ku ying jing 苦應經 are likely to be mistakes for the Xie jian jing 邪見經 and the Ku yin jing 苦陰經 respectively, both of which titles appear in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures; the *Ullambana 盂蘭盆經 [T685] is obviously the Yulan jing 盂蘭經 in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures, and; although Zhisheng says "see Dao'an's catalogue and [Fei] Changfang's catalogue" 見道安錄及長房錄 about the lost Ciren wen bashi zhong hao jing 慈仁問八十種好經 and the Sanshi'er xiang yinyuan jing 三十二相因緣經, this line just means that Fei said (wrongly) that those titles were included in Dao’an’s catalogue, but not that Dao’an really ascribed those texts to Dharmaraksa, since if he had, Sengyou would definitely have included them among Dharmaraksa’s works, but in fact, he lists the two titles in his “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯經錄. [Thus, Sakaino leaves just a few titles in the twenty-seven titles which he does not explicitly reject as Dharmaraksa’s work. However, his tone is fairly negative all the way through the discussion, and it would be much reasonable to assume that he would reject the ascription of those few to Dharmaraksa as well --- AI.] Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0047; 離睡經 T0050; 受歲經 T0056; 樂想經 T0077; 尊上經 T0082; 意經 T0083; 應法經 T0136; 佛說四未曾有法經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0391; 般泥洹後灌臘經; Bannihuan hou si bei guanla jing 般泥洹後四輩灌臘經 T0428; 佛說八陽神呪經 T0611; 法觀經 T0612; 身觀經 T0685; 佛說盂蘭盆經 T0738; 佛說分別經 T0769; Si bei xue jing 四輩學經; 佛說四輩經; Si bei dizi jing 四輩弟子經

Zhisheng saw a “modified Liang version” 梁本 of the *Mahāsaṃnipāta (the collection now extant as T397), which included the (alternate) *Sūryagarbha 日密分 T397(13), and the *Gagaṇagañjaparipṛcchā 虛空藏品 (T397[10]), even though they were not included in the original Liang text. Sakaino agrees with Matsumoto Bunzaburō's 松本文三郎 view (in Butten hihyō ron 佛典批評論) that the Gagaṇagañjaparipṛcchā should be the Xukongzang pusa jing 虛空藏菩薩經 in eight juan ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅, which is recorded in CSZJJ. Little is known about this Shengjian, other than the record in CSZJJ.

Edit

588-589

 Zhisheng saw a “modified Liang version” 梁本 of the *Mahasamnipata (the collection now extant as T397), which included the (alternate) *Suryagarbha 日密分 T397(13), and the *Gaganaganjapariprccha 虛空藏品 (T397[10]), even though they were not included in the original Liang text. Sakaino agrees with Matsumoto Bunzaburo's 松本文三郎 view (in Butten hihyo ron 佛典批評論) that the Gaganaganjapariprccha should be the Xukongzang pusa jing 虛空藏菩薩經 in eight juan ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅, which is recorded in CSZJJ. Little is known about this Shengjian, other than the record in CSZJJ. Shengjian, 聖堅, Fajian, 法堅 T397(8); 虚空藏品; Gaganaganjapariprccha; Da puji jing 大普集經; Dabao ji jing 大寶集經

Sakaino presents a list of twenty-seven titles ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, which KYL claimed should be excised as excerpts 別抄 (174-175). According to Sakaino, among the twenty-seven titles, six were already listed as Dharmarakṣa’s work in CSZJJ, while the remaining twenty-one titles were taken by Fei from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 of CSZJJ. Sakaino states that it is clear that Fei took those anonymous titles from CSZJJ and attributed to Dharmarakṣa, without any evidential basis. (This entry is associated with two extant titles possibly to be associated with titles among the twenty-seven.)

[Note: It is puzzling that Sakaino presents this evidence as if it features in Zhisheng's KYL, whereas in fact, he seems to be referring to Yuanzhao's 圓照 continuation of that catalogue, the 貞元新定釋教目錄, T2157 (LV} 794b13-c5 --- MR.]

Sakaino also claims that [this catalogue] went too far in excising all twenty-seven titles. This is because, an excerpt 別抄 should be the same text as a certain part of a larger text, whereas the cataloguer here excises texts including alternate translations 異譯, that is to say, texts with the same content, but not necessarily the exact same text. According to Sakaino, those alternate translations should not have been excised. For example, the catalogue states that the Pusa hui guo jing 菩薩悔過經[cf. 文殊悔過經? T459 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa] should be excised as an excerpt from the 十住論, but rather, that the 十住毘婆沙 was translated by Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎. In addition, the 菩薩悔過經 is probably a totally different text from the 十住論 (181).

Here are the 27 titles the (Zhenyuan) Kaiyuan lu claims should be excised:

寶女問惠經 [寶女所問經? T399 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa] from 大集經
梵王變身經 from the 大集經
四自在神通經 from the 自在王經
金剛菩薩行經 from the Daśabhūmika 漸備經 [cf. 漸備一切智徳經 T285 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
光世音經 from the Lotus 法華 [cf. 正法華經T263 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]　
寶日光明菩薩經 from the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka 悲華經 [悲華經?? T157 ascribed to *Lokakṣema]
普首童眞經 from 普超三昧經 [cf. 文殊師利普超三昧經 T627 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
隨藍本經 from the 六度集經 [cf. 六度集經 T152 ascribed 康僧會]
馬王經 from the 六度集經 [cf. T152]
彌勒女身經 from the 六度集經 [cf. T152]
摩調王經from the 六度集經 [cf. T152]
菩薩悔過經 [cf. 文殊悔過經 T459 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa?] from the Daśabhūmika-śāstra 十住論
人從所來經 from人本欲生經 [cf. 人本欲生經 T14 ascribed to An Shigao]
貧窮經 from the Madhyamāgama 中阿含經 [cf. T26]
何苦經from the Madhyamāgama 中阿含經 [cf. T26]
七寶經 from the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含經 [cf. T125]
匿王經 from the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含
悉鞞梨天子詣佛説偈經from the Saṃyuktāgama雜阿含
四種人經 from the Saṃyuktāgama雜阿含
閑居經 from the *Jātaka 生經 [cf. 生經 T154 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
總持經 from 生經 [cf. T154]
腹使經 from 生經 [cf. T154]
密具經 from 生經 [cf. T154]
雜讃經 from 生經 [cf. T154]
女人欲熾荒迷經from 出曜經 [cf. Udānavarga 出曜經 T212 ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念]
多聞經 from 出曜經 [cf. T212]
寤意經 from 出曜經 [cf. T212]

Edit

174-177, 181

 Sakaino presents a list of twenty-seven titles ascribed to Dharmaraksa, which KYL claimed should be excised as excerpts 別抄 (174-175). According to Sakaino, among the twenty-seven titles, six were already listed as Dharmaraksa’s work in CSZJJ, while the remaining twenty-one titles were taken by Fei from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 of CSZJJ. Sakaino states that it is clear that Fei took those anonymous titles from CSZJJ and attributed to Dharmaraksa, without any evidential basis. (This entry is associated with two extant titles possibly to be associated with titles among the twenty-seven.) [Note: It is puzzling that Sakaino presents this evidence as if it features in Zhisheng's KYL, whereas in fact, he seems to be referring to Yuanzhao's 圓照 continuation of that catalogue, the 貞元新定釋教目錄, T2157 (LV} 794b13-c5 --- MR.] Sakaino also claims that [this catalogue] went too far in excising all twenty-seven titles. This is because, an excerpt 別抄 should be the same text as a certain part of a larger text, whereas the cataloguer here excises texts including alternate translations 異譯, that is to say, texts with the same content, but not necessarily the exact same text. According to Sakaino, those alternate translations should not have been excised. For example, the catalogue states that the Pusa hui guo jing 菩薩悔過經[cf. 文殊悔過經? T459 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] should be excised as an excerpt from the 十住論, but rather, that the 十住毘婆沙 was translated by Buddhayasas 佛陀耶舎. In addition, the 菩薩悔過經 is probably a totally different text from the 十住論 (181). Here are the 27 titles the (Zhenyuan) Kaiyuan lu claims should be excised: 寶女問惠經 [寶女所問經? T399 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] from 大集經 梵王變身經 from the 大集經 四自在神通經 from the 自在王經 金剛菩薩行經 from the Dasabhumika 漸備經 [cf. 漸備一切智徳經 T285 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] 光世音經 from the Lotus 法華 [cf. 正法華經T263 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] 寶日光明菩薩經 from the Karunapundarika 悲華經 [悲華經?? T157 ascribed to *Lokaksema] 普首童眞經 from 普超三昧經 [cf. 文殊師利普超三昧經 T627 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] 隨藍本經 from the 六度集經 [cf. 六度集經 T152 ascribed 康僧會] 馬王經 from the 六度集經 [cf. T152] 彌勒女身經 from the 六度集經 [cf. T152] 摩調王經from the 六度集經 [cf. T152] 菩薩悔過經 [cf. 文殊悔過經 T459 ascribed to Dharmaraksa?] from the Dasabhumika-sastra 十住論 人從所來經 from人本欲生經 [cf. 人本欲生經 T14 ascribed to An Shigao] 貧窮經 from the Madhyamagama 中阿含經 [cf. T26] 何苦經from the Madhyamagama 中阿含經 [cf. T26] 七寶經 from the *Ekottarikagama 増一阿含經 [cf. T125] 匿王經 from the Samyuktagama 雜阿含 悉鞞梨天子詣佛説偈經from the Samyuktagama雜阿含 四種人經 from the Samyuktagama雜阿含 閑居經 from the *Jataka 生經 [cf. 生經 T154 ascribed to Dharmaraksa] 總持經 from 生經 [cf. T154] 腹使經 from 生經 [cf. T154] 密具經 from 生經 [cf. T154] 雜讃經 from 生經 [cf. T154] 女人欲熾荒迷經from 出曜經 [cf. Udanavarga 出曜經 T212 ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念] 多聞經 from 出曜經 [cf. T212] 寤意經 from 出曜經 [cf. T212] T0399; 寶女所問經; 寶女三昧經 T0459; 佛說文殊悔過經; 文殊師利悔過

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, 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 (Saddharmapundarika) 正法華經: 疑卽是正法華經之別名 (32a11). T0269; 佛說法華三昧經

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

 Sakaino discusses in some detail reports about various versions of the *Mahasamnipata 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 *Lokaksema and Kumarajiva (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] *Mahayanopadesa, 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 *Dharmaksema, including the possibility that one sutra ("chapter" 品) has gone missing between the present sutras 5 and 6 (海慧菩薩品 *Sagaramatipariprccha, 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 *Mahasamnipata” 新合大集經 in sixty juan, by adding new parts such as the Suryagarbha 日藏經 T397(14) in fifteen juan and the Candragarbha 月藏經 T397(15) in twelve juan, both ascribed to Narendrayasas 那連提耶舍. See further other entries for Sakaino’s suggestions about individual sutras in this collection. T0397; 大方等大集經

Sakaino points out that the title Da zeng weiyi jing 大僧威儀經 (4 juan), ascribed in LDSBJ to An Shigao, must have been taken from the Da biqiu weiyi jing 大比丘威儀經 (2 juan) in the new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 in CSZJJ [大比丘三千威儀卷 T1470, ascribed to An Shigao]. Sakaino conjectures that the difference in length (4 juan vs. 2 juan) was probably caused by the fact that the title Da biqiu weiyi jing was listed twice in CSZJJ. Fei might well have put the two entries together by mistake. Or, Sakaino adds, Fei may have deliberately changed his assertion about the length of the text, as part of his fabrication.

Edit

78-79

 Sakaino points out that the title Da zeng weiyi jing 大僧威儀經 (4 juan), ascribed in LDSBJ to An Shigao, must have been taken from the Da biqiu weiyi jing 大比丘威儀經 (2 juan) in the new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 in CSZJJ [大比丘三千威儀卷 T1470, ascribed to An Shigao]. Sakaino conjectures that the difference in length (4 juan vs. 2 juan) was probably caused by the fact that the title Da biqiu weiyi jing was listed twice in CSZJJ. Fei might well have put the two entries together by mistake. Or, Sakaino adds, Fei may have deliberately changed his assertion about the length of the text, as part of his fabrication. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1470; 大比丘三千威儀

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 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0043; Yan wang wu tianshizhe jing 閻王五天使者經; 閻羅王五天使者經; Yan wang tianshizhe jing 鹽王天使者經; Yan wang tianshizhe jing 閻王天使者經

Kumārajīva’s Lotus 法華經 T262 does not include the Devadatta chapter 提婆品. The chapter was translated by Faxian 法献 and Fayi 法意 (達摩摩提, *Dharmamati), slightly more than eighty years after Kumārajīva translated the rest of the text, and added to it. Faxian 法献 was the teacher of Sengyou, so the ascription to him and Fayi in CSZJJ should be reliable. Not much is known about Fayi/*Dharmamati.

Edit

366-367, cf. 649-650

 Kumarajiva’s Lotus 法華經 T262 does not include the Devadatta chapter 提婆品. The chapter was translated by Faxian 法献 and Fayi 法意 (達摩摩提, *Dharmamati), slightly more than eighty years after Kumarajiva translated the rest of the text, and added to it. Faxian 法献 was the teacher of Sengyou, so the ascription to him and Fayi in CSZJJ should be reliable. Not much is known about Fayi/*Dharmamati. Faxian 法献 Fayi 法意, *Dharmamati 達摩摩提 T262 Devadatta Ch.

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

 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. T0007; 大般涅槃經 T0294; 佛說羅摩伽經

Sengyou lists the titles Da kongque wang shenzhou 大孔雀王神咒 (1 juan) and the Kongque wang za shenzhou 孔雀王雜神咒 (1 juan), ascribing both of them to *Śīlamitra 尸梨蜜 (沙門尸梨蜜所出) [Sakaino in effect suggests these are the only works legitimately ascribed to *Śīlamitra]. LDSBJ added a new ascription to *Śīlamitra, the Da guandjing jing 大灌頂經 (9 juan), making [the work of *Śīlamitra] 3 titles in 11 juan. KYL changed this to a single title Da guanding jing 大灌頂經 in 12 juan (T1331). However, Sakaino points out that the ascription of T1331 to *Śīlamitra is baseless. Sakaino quotes a list of 11 titles including the word guanding 灌頂 from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (T2145 [LV] 31a24-b6) Sakaino also quotes Sengyou’s note on the 灌頂普廣經 stating 從七萬二千神王呪至召五方龍王呪凡九經是舊集灌頂總名大灌頂經從梵天神策及普廣經拔除過罪經凡三卷是後人所集足大灌頂為十二卷其拔除過罪經一卷摘入疑經錄中故不兩載 (T2145 [LV] 31b6-8). Based on this note, Sakaino points out that what CSZJJ recorded was that the title Da guanding jing 大灌頂經 in fact referred to 9 titles in Sengyou’s list (from 灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘呪經 to 灌頂召五方龍王攝疫毒神呪經), while each of the 9 was known and used separately as well. Sakaino asserts that ascribing those titles to *Śīlamitra is utterly baseless, in line with Fei’s common practice of fabricating new ascriptions by re-using existing titles from CSZJJ. Later, the Guanding Fantian shence jing 灌頂梵天神策經 and Guanding puguang jing 灌頂普廣經 were added to the same collection, and the 大灌頂經 reached 12 juan, also including the Bachu guozui jing 拔除過罪經 1 juan, even though the Bachu guozui jing was originally listed separately by Sengyou, since it was regarded as apocryphal 僞經 (it is listed as such in the “catalogue of fake scriptures” 僞經錄, T2145 [LV] 39a21, with a note stating: 一名藥師琉璃光經或名灌頂拔除過罪生死度脱經). Thus, Sakaino asserts that T1331 has no relation with *Śīlamitra. Moreover, Fei also double-lists the twelve titles from Sengyou’s anonymous list as anonymous scriptures, while at the same time ascribing 9 of them to *Śīlamitra. KYL ascribed 13 titles [Sakaino does not say which 13 ---AI] to *Śīlamitra, but at the same time, stated that the Guanding jing was listed as 9 fascicles in the catalogues for reasons he found unclear 錄云九卷未詳. This clearly shows that for this item, Zhisheng did not even see CSZJJ.

Sakaino agrees with the view that all of the scriptures included in T1331 are apocryphal 僞妄, as stated in Jōdo kyō no kigen oyobi hattatsu 淨土教の起源及發達 by Mochizuku Shinkō 望月信亭.

Edit

276-278

 Sengyou lists the titles Da kongque wang shenzhou 大孔雀王神咒 (1 juan) and the Kongque wang za shenzhou 孔雀王雜神咒 (1 juan), ascribing both of them to *Silamitra 尸梨蜜 (沙門尸梨蜜所出) [Sakaino in effect suggests these are the only works legitimately ascribed to *Silamitra]. LDSBJ added a new ascription to *Silamitra, the Da guandjing jing 大灌頂經 (9 juan), making [the work of *Silamitra] 3 titles in 11 juan. KYL changed this to a single title Da guanding jing 大灌頂經 in 12 juan (T1331). However, Sakaino points out that the ascription of T1331 to *Silamitra is baseless. Sakaino quotes a list of 11 titles including the word guanding 灌頂 from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (T2145 [LV] 31a24-b6) Sakaino also quotes Sengyou’s note on the 灌頂普廣經 stating 從七萬二千神王呪至召五方龍王呪凡九經是舊集灌頂總名大灌頂經從梵天神策及普廣經拔除過罪經凡三卷是後人所集足大灌頂為十二卷其拔除過罪經一卷摘入疑經錄中故不兩載 (T2145 [LV] 31b6-8). Based on this note, Sakaino points out that what CSZJJ recorded was that the title Da guanding jing 大灌頂經 in fact referred to 9 titles in Sengyou’s list (from 灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘呪經 to 灌頂召五方龍王攝疫毒神呪經), while each of the 9 was known and used separately as well. Sakaino asserts that ascribing those titles to *Silamitra is utterly baseless, in line with Fei’s common practice of fabricating new ascriptions by re-using existing titles from CSZJJ. Later, the Guanding Fantian shence jing 灌頂梵天神策經 and Guanding puguang jing 灌頂普廣經 were added to the same collection, and the 大灌頂經 reached 12 juan, also including the Bachu guozui jing 拔除過罪經 1 juan, even though the Bachu guozui jing was originally listed separately by Sengyou, since it was regarded as apocryphal 僞經 (it is listed as such in the “catalogue of fake scriptures” 僞經錄, T2145 [LV] 39a21, with a note stating: 一名藥師琉璃光經或名灌頂拔除過罪生死度脱經). Thus, Sakaino asserts that T1331 has no relation with *Silamitra. Moreover, Fei also double-lists the twelve titles from Sengyou’s anonymous list as anonymous scriptures, while at the same time ascribing 9 of them to *Silamitra. KYL ascribed 13 titles [Sakaino does not say which 13 ---AI] to *Silamitra, but at the same time, stated that the Guanding jing was listed as 9 fascicles in the catalogues for reasons he found unclear 錄云九卷未詳. This clearly shows that for this item, Zhisheng did not even see CSZJJ. Sakaino agrees with the view that all of the scriptures included in T1331 are apocryphal 僞妄, as stated in Jodo kyo no kigen oyobi hattatsu 淨土教の起源及發達 by Mochizuku Shinko 望月信亭. T1331; 佛說灌頂經

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

 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 *Dharmaksema, 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1527; 涅槃論

Sakaino presents a list of works ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 in LDSBJ (14 titles), and makes the following general claims:

Four should be excised, as KYL points out (three are considered byproduct/offshoot excerpts 別抄, and one apocryphal 疑);

Three more were already listed in CSZJJ, among which the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經 [廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T268] is the text that can be regarded most safely as Zhiyan’s work;

Five more titles are apparently taken from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄. Among them, three (菩薩瓔珞本業經, 阿那含經, and 淨度三昧經) are clustered as the beginning of Sengyou’s catalogue, hence Sakaino suspects that Fei just took those titles and arbitrarily re-ascribed them to Zhiyan;

Four overlap with works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (including 2 titles, the Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186 and the Guangbo yanjing jing, for which cf. T318, already listed in CSZJJ for both Zhiyan and Dharmarakṣa). Sakaino states that, in this case, Fei might have simply been confused, partly influenced by the fact that CSZJJ did ascribe the Lalitavistara and the Guangbo zanjing jing to both Zhiyan and Dharmarakṣa.

Nothing is known about the 善德優婆塞經.

Although Sakaino does not explicitly say which texts other than T268 can be safely regarded as Zhiyan’s work, he implies that there are none, as the Lalitavistara ascribed to Zhiyan has been lost, and while the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 ascribed to him was listed in CSZJJ, the extant text of that title,T590, is probably apocryphal.

Edit

505-511

 Sakaino presents a list of works ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 in LDSBJ (14 titles), and makes the following general claims: Four should be excised, as KYL points out (three are considered byproduct/offshoot excerpts 別抄, and one apocryphal 疑); Three more were already listed in CSZJJ, among which the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經 [廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T268] is the text that can be regarded most safely as Zhiyan’s work; Five more titles are apparently taken from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄. Among them, three (菩薩瓔珞本業經, 阿那含經, and 淨度三昧經) are clustered as the beginning of Sengyou’s catalogue, hence Sakaino suspects that Fei just took those titles and arbitrarily re-ascribed them to Zhiyan; Four overlap with works ascribed to Dharmaraksa (including 2 titles, the Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186 and the Guangbo yanjing jing, for which cf. T318, already listed in CSZJJ for both Zhiyan and Dharmaraksa). Sakaino states that, in this case, Fei might have simply been confused, partly influenced by the fact that CSZJJ did ascribe the Lalitavistara and the Guangbo zanjing jing to both Zhiyan and Dharmaraksa. Nothing is known about the 善德優婆塞經. Although Sakaino does not explicitly say which texts other than T268 can be safely regarded as Zhiyan’s work, he implies that there are none, as the Lalitavistara ascribed to Zhiyan has been lost, and while the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 ascribed to him was listed in CSZJJ, the extant text of that title,T590, is probably apocryphal. T0268; 佛說廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T0269; 佛說法華三昧經 T0590; 佛說四天王經

The Akṣayamati-nirdeśa 無盡意菩薩品 T397(12) was initially missing from the *Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經, and was added later. Its tone and vocabulary are not at all that of *Dharmakṣema. Different catalogues record that there existed a text of this title ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲, but CSZJJ does not include it among their works. Sakaino points out that CSZJJ records a Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 in four juan and an Achamo jing 阿差末經 in four juan, both of which titles should correspond to *Akṣayamati, and ascribes both to Dharmarakṣa, although they are the same text, and the 阿差末經 should be excised.

We also have records of another Wujinyi jing 無盡意經, ascribed to Fajuan 法眷. Five titles are ascribed to Fajuan, but all of them were missing at the time of CSZJJ, and Sengyou did not directly see any of them. Four of the five appear to be related to the *Mahasaṃnipāta 大集經, judging from the titles. Sakaino asserts, agreeing with Matsumono Bunzaburō 松本文三郎 (in Butten hihyō ron 佛典批評論) that, although it is far from certain, the Wujinyi jing ascribed to Fajuan is likely to be the same Wujinyi pusa pin 無盡意菩薩品 that was added to the Mahāsaṃnipāta, viz., T397(12), as it is the only record about such a title that is reasonably credible.

Edit

589-592

 The Aksayamati-nirdesa 無盡意菩薩品 T397(12) was initially missing from the *Mahasamnipata 大集經, and was added later. Its tone and vocabulary are not at all that of *Dharmaksema. Different catalogues record that there existed a text of this title ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲, but CSZJJ does not include it among their works. Sakaino points out that CSZJJ records a Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 in four juan and an Achamo jing 阿差末經 in four juan, both of which titles should correspond to *Aksayamati, and ascribes both to Dharmaraksa, although they are the same text, and the 阿差末經 should be excised. We also have records of another Wujinyi jing 無盡意經, ascribed to Fajuan 法眷. Five titles are ascribed to Fajuan, but all of them were missing at the time of CSZJJ, and Sengyou did not directly see any of them. Four of the five appear to be related to the *Mahasamnipata 大集經, judging from the titles. Sakaino asserts, agreeing with Matsumono Bunzaburo 松本文三郎 (in Butten hihyo ron 佛典批評論) that, although it is far from certain, the Wujinyi jing ascribed to Fajuan is likely to be the same Wujinyi pusa pin 無盡意菩薩品 that was added to the Mahasamnipata, viz., T397(12), as it is the only record about such a title that is reasonably credible. Fajuan 法眷 T397(12); 無盡意品; Aksayamati-nirdesa

A supposed ”latter portion” 後分 of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 涅槃經 never made it to China, though *Dharmakṣema was reportedly (according to one version of the story) assassinated as he was ostensibly on the way to get it. The Da banniepan jing houyi tupi fen 大般涅槃經後譯荼毘分 [大般涅槃經後分 T377, ascribed to *Jñānabhadra 若那跋陀羅] was produced in the Tang period, and is first recorded in DZKZM. According to that record, this text was allegedly translated by Huining 會寧 and *Jñānabhadra, and sent to Chang’an 長安. Yijing 義淨 stated that it was an excerpt 抄出 from an Āgama 阿含, but Sakaino points out that its contents are clearly based on Mahāyāna teachings. Sakaino asserts that T377 is an apocryphon 僞經, written by Huining 會寧 who claimed to have found and translated the text in his journey to India and sent it to China.

Edit

614-615

 A supposed ”latter portion” 後分 of the Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra 涅槃經 never made it to China, though *Dharmaksema was reportedly (according to one version of the story) assassinated as he was ostensibly on the way to get it. The Da banniepan jing houyi tupi fen 大般涅槃經後譯荼毘分 [大般涅槃經後分 T377, ascribed to *Jnanabhadra 若那跋陀羅] was produced in the Tang period, and is first recorded in DZKZM. According to that record, this text was allegedly translated by Huining 會寧 and *Jnanabhadra, and sent to Chang’an 長安. Yijing 義淨 stated that it was an excerpt 抄出 from an Agama 阿含, but Sakaino points out that its contents are clearly based on Mahayana teachings. Sakaino asserts that T377 is an apocryphon 僞經, written by Huining 會寧 who claimed to have found and translated the text in his journey to India and sent it to China. Huining 會寧 T0377; 大般涅槃經後分

Zhisheng saw a “modified Liang version” 梁本 of the *Mahāsaṃnipāta (the collection now extant as T397), which had the (alternate) *Sūryagarbha 日密分 T397(13), even though it was not included in the original Liang text. It is not known who translated this 日密分, and how it was added to the 大集經. It was not *Dharmakṣema’s work, Sakaino asserts, as in his translation lexicon, garbha should be 藏, not 密. The version that Zhisheng saw also had the *Gagaṇagañjaparipṛcchā 虛空藏品 (T397[8]) added to it later. This was also translated by a different person/persons from the other sutras/chapters (i.e. not by *Dharmakṣema), and has a different structure.

Edit

587-588

 Zhisheng saw a “modified Liang version” 梁本 of the *Mahasamnipata (the collection now extant as T397), which had the (alternate) *Suryagarbha 日密分 T397(13), even though it was not included in the original Liang text. It is not known who translated this 日密分, and how it was added to the 大集經. It was not *Dharmaksema’s work, Sakaino asserts, as in his translation lexicon, garbha should be 藏, not 密. The version that Zhisheng saw also had the *Gaganaganjapariprccha 虛空藏品 (T397[8]) added to it later. This was also translated by a different person/persons from the other sutras/chapters (i.e. not by *Dharmaksema), and has a different structure. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Suryagarbhavaipulya-sutra T397(8); 虚空藏品; Gaganaganjapariprccha; Da puji jing 大普集經; Dabao ji jing 大寶集經

The *Māndhātṛ-sūtra 文陀竭王經 T40 is an alternate translation of a text also found in the Madhyamāgama (cf. 中阿含 T26), and its ascription to *Dharmakṣema is highly dubious, as he never translated “Hīnayāna” texts.

Edit

603-604

 The *Mandhatr-sutra 文陀竭王經 T40 is an alternate translation of a text also found in the Madhyamagama (cf. 中阿含 T26), and its ascription to *Dharmaksema is highly dubious, as he never translated “Hinayana” texts. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0040; 文陀竭王經; *Mandhatr-sutra?

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

 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 *Mahasamnipata 大集經 by Sengjiu 僧就. In the extant T397, this text is placed at the end, and ascribed to Narendrayasas 那連提耶舍. Sakaino asserts that the content and vocabulary indicate that it is an old translation and the ascription to Narendrayasas 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 Narendrayasas or Jnanagupta/Jinagupta 闍那崛多. T397(17); Jiaoji jing 校計經; Mingdu wushi jiaoji jing 明度五十校計經; 十方菩薩品; 十方菩薩品, 五十校計經

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

 Gyeongheung 憬興, in his 無量壽經述文讃, reascribes the Sukhavativyuha-sutra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 (ascribed in the present canon to *Lokaksema) to Bo Yan, but Sakaino judges that this ascription is baseless. T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra

Sakaino argues that the Sumagadhāvadāna 須摩提女經 [T128 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is not Zhi Qian’s work, since transliteration words are frequently instead of translation. Sakaino further suggests that T128 is likely to be Dharmarakṣa’s work, judging from several terminological traits.

Edit

132-133

 Sakaino argues that the Sumagadhavadana 須摩提女經 [T128 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is not Zhi Qian’s work, since transliteration words are frequently instead of translation. Sakaino further suggests that T128 is likely to be Dharmaraksa’s work, judging from several terminological traits. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0128; 須摩提女經

Sakaino simply states that the Sīṅgālaka-sūtra 尸迦羅越經 in one juan ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Liu xiang li jing 六向禮經 [尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 ascribed to An Shigao], corresponding to the Shan sheng jing in the Dīrghāgama (DĀ 16) should not be ascribed to An Shigao, without giving reasons.

Edit

741

 Sakaino simply states that the Singalaka-sutra 尸迦羅越經 in one juan ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Liu xiang li jing 六向禮經 [尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 ascribed to An Shigao], corresponding to the Shan sheng jing in the Dirghagama (DA 16) should not be ascribed to An Shigao, without giving reasons. T0016; 尸迦羅越六方禮經

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

 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 *Lokaksema 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 Dharmaraksa in CSZJJ; and the title Asheshi wang jing was probably taken from a title ascribed to Dharmaraksa in CSZJJ. Sakaino maintains that these four were ascribed to An Faqin in LDSBJ by confusion or deliberate fabrication. T0816; Dao shenzu jing 道神足經; He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經; 佛說道神足無極變化經 T2042; 阿育王傳

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

 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 *Sukhavativzuha 無量清淨平等覺經, a second title also apparently corresponding to a Sukhavativyuha 平等覺經, the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 (cf. T330), a Suramgamasamadhi 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 Suramgamasamadhi, the Xulai jing, and the Chu zai jing) given to Boyan already in CSZJJ are not reliable, as the Suramgamasamadhi is double-listed, and none of the three were recorded by Dao’an. The first Sukhavativyuha 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 Sukhavativyuha-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. T0328; Xulai pusa jing 須賴菩薩經; 佛說須賴經 T0330; Zhangzhe weishi jing, 長者威勢經; Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經; 佛說菩薩修行經; Viradattapariprccha

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 claims that the ascription of the *Mahaparinirvana-sutra 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 Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra 大般泥洹經 T376 and a Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等泥洹經 (*Vaipulya-nirvana-sutra). 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 Mahayana text, T376, instead. Sakaino conjectures that Zhisheng made these claims because he wondered why Faxian had translated two Mahayana Nirvana Sutras, 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 Gunabhadra’s work. His reasons to claiming so include the fact that Faxian 法顯 never used the term niepan 涅槃 for nirvana in his works, while Gunabhadra 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 Gunabhadra’s work, since other works of Gunabhadra are very different from T7 in character, and the vocabulary of Gunabhadra’s Samyutkagama 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 Gunabhadra’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). Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 T0007; 大般涅槃經

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 suggests that the although the *Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra 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. Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 T0376; 佛說大般泥洹經

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 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 lu jing 法律經 (Fa lu 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0430; 八吉祥經 T0631; 佛說法律三昧經 T1351; 佛說持句神呪經 T1356; 佛說華積陀羅尼神呪經

Sakaino claims that the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [T453] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is actually an excerpt from the *Ekottarikāgama増一阿含 ascribed to *Dharmanandin 曇摩難提. Sakaino conjectures that this excerpt was initially treated as anonymous, but ascribed to Dharmarakṣa after the Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa went missing. However, the extant T453 cannot be the Mile cheng Fo jing, because the two texts differ too much in length (Sakaino quotes a passage from a colophon 跋文 to the Xiasheng jing 下生經 written by the editor of the Shukusatsu zōkyō 縮刷藏經 to the same effect).

Edit

427-428

 Sakaino claims that the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [T453] ascribed to Dharmaraksa is actually an excerpt from the *Ekottarikagama増一阿含 ascribed to *Dharmanandin 曇摩難提. Sakaino conjectures that this excerpt was initially treated as anonymous, but ascribed to Dharmaraksa after the Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa went missing. However, the extant T453 cannot be the Mile cheng Fo jing, because the two texts differ too much in length (Sakaino quotes a passage from a colophon 跋文 to the Xiasheng jing 下生經 written by the editor of the Shukusatsu zokyo 縮刷藏經 to the same effect). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0453; 佛說彌勒下生經

Sakaino quotes a passage from LDSBJ recording details about Paramārtha’s translation of the Suvarṇabhāsottama-sūtra 金光明經. Reportedly, Huibao 惠寶 played the role of 傳(語, oral translator) and Xiao Liang 蕭梁 worked as amanuensis 筆受. Sakaino states, citing the preface of the synoptic edition of the Suvarṇabhāsottama 新合金光明經 by Baogui 寶貴 of the Sui (T664), that Paramārtha’s version of the text in 7 juan has four chapters 四品 in addition to those already found in the translation ascribed to Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 (4 juan, 18 chapters).

Edit

704

 Sakaino quotes a passage from LDSBJ recording details about Paramartha’s translation of the Suvarnabhasottama-sutra 金光明經. Reportedly, Huibao 惠寶 played the role of 傳(語, oral translator) and Xiao Liang 蕭梁 worked as amanuensis 筆受. Sakaino states, citing the preface of the synoptic edition of the Suvarnabhasottama 新合金光明經 by Baogui 寶貴 of the Sui (T664), that Paramartha’s version of the text in 7 juan has four chapters 四品 in addition to those already found in the translation ascribed to Dharmaksema 曇無讖 (4 juan, 18 chapters). T0664; 合部金光明經; Survana(pra)bhasottama-sutrendraraja, Suvarnaprabhasottama-sutra etc.

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

 Sakaino enters into a complex discussion about the year of translation of the *Anuttarasraya-sutra 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. T0669; 佛說無上依經

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

 The *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikagama 増一阿含 T125: Sakaino argues that the ascription of the *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikagama 増一阿含 T125 to *Sanghadeva 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 *Madhyamagama and the *Ekottarikagama 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 Sanghadeva went to Luoyang 洛陽 and the *Ekottarikagama was there revised by Sanghadeva. T26 was retranslated from a different original text when Sanghadeva went to south. This version is the *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26 extant today. The chief translator 譯主 was *Sangharaksa 僧伽羅叉, and *Sanghadeva worked as the interpreter/oral translator 傳語. Little is known about this Sangharaksa. KYL is incorrect in recording that Sanghadeva retranslated the*Ekottarikagama as well as the Madhyamagama. The *Ekottarikagama 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 *Ekottarikagama 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). *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 Dao'an 道安 Fahe 法和 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經

Sakaino points out that KYL records the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 (T1428 ascribed to Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念) as 60 juan, while reporting that Huibian 惠辯 worked as the oral interpreter 傳譯.

Edit

401

 Sakaino points out that KYL records the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 (T1428 ascribed to Buddhayasas 佛陀耶舍 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念) as 60 juan, while reporting that Huibian 惠辯 worked as the oral interpreter 傳譯. Huibian 慧辯, 惠辯 T1428; 四分律; 曇無德律

Sakaino poins out that the 坐禅三昧經 T614 is not the translation of a single text, but a collection of texts regarding Chan. The first portion of the text (43 stanzas 偈) was reported as written by 究摩羅羅陀 (Kumāralabdha), and the last portion (20 stanzas) was reported as written by “Aśvaghoṣa bodhisatva” 馬鳴菩薩 [Sakaino himself writes "42 juan" 四十二巻 and "20 juan" 二十巻, but comparison with his source at T2145 (LV) 20-b20 shows that this is obviously in error --- AI]. Five kinds of Chan 五門 consisting of the views of different authors are explained in between.

Edit

364-365

 Sakaino poins out that the 坐禅三昧經 T614 is not the translation of a single text, but a collection of texts regarding Chan. The first portion of the text (43 stanzas 偈) was reported as written by 究摩羅羅陀 (Kumaralabdha), and the last portion (20 stanzas) was reported as written by “Asvaghosa bodhisatva” 馬鳴菩薩 [Sakaino himself writes "42 juan" 四十二巻 and "20 juan" 二十巻, but comparison with his source at T2145 (LV) 20-b20 shows that this is obviously in error --- AI]. Five kinds of Chan 五門 consisting of the views of different authors are explained in between. T0614; 坐禪三昧經

Sakaino states that Daosheng’s 道生 Fahua shu 法華疏 (2 juan) (妙法蓮花經疏 X577) is based on what the author heard at Kumārajīva’s lectures. [X557 gives the author as 笠(sic!)道生, fn. 2 in CBETA corrects this obvious error, saying: 笠ハ竺ニツクルベシ --- MR.] Among the three commentaries by Kumārajīva’s students’ on the Lotus, only this one is extant. The content indicates that the Devadatta chapter 提婆品 was missing from Kumārajīva’s original translation of the Lotus T262.

Edit

375

 Sakaino states that Daosheng’s 道生 Fahua shu 法華疏 (2 juan) (妙法蓮花經疏 X577) is based on what the author heard at Kumarajiva’s lectures. [X557 gives the author as 笠(sic!)道生, fn. 2 in CBETA corrects this obvious error, saying: 笠ハ竺ニツクルヘシ --- MR.] Among the three commentaries by Kumarajiva’s students’ on the Lotus, only this one is extant. The content indicates that the Devadatta chapter 提婆品 was missing from Kumarajiva’s original translation of the Lotus T262. T262 Devadatta Ch.

Sakaino defends the traditional attribution of T1484 to Kumārajīva, and argues that it is a genuine translation text.

Edit

396-397

 Sakaino defends the traditional attribution of T1484 to Kumarajiva, and argues that it is a genuine translation text. T1484; 梵網經

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

 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. Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 Faxian, 法顯 T0007; 大般涅槃經 T0376; 佛說大般泥洹經 T0745; 佛說雜藏經 T1425; 摩訶僧祇律 T1427; 摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本 T1437; 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本

Sakaino mentions that Zhisheng held that the Shi song lü 十誦律 in 61 juan [Sarvāstivāda Vinaya/*Daśādhyāyavinaya T1435, ascribed to *Puṇyatāra and Kumārajīva 弗若多羅共羅什譯] should be excised from the list of Kumārajīva’s works, since 58 out of 61 juan were “translated” by Puṇyatāra 弗若多羅, and the remaining three juan were an addition “translated” by *Vimalākṣa 卑摩羅叉.

Edit

348

 Sakaino mentions that Zhisheng held that the Shi song lu 十誦律 in 61 juan [Sarvastivada Vinaya/*Dasadhyayavinaya T1435, ascribed to *Punyatara and Kumarajiva 弗若多羅共羅什譯] should be excised from the list of Kumarajiva’s works, since 58 out of 61 juan were “translated” by Punyatara 弗若多羅, and the remaining three juan were an addition “translated” by *Vimalaksa 卑摩羅叉. *Punyatara, 弗若多羅 Vimalaksa 卑摩羅叉 T1435; 十誦律

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

 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. T0609; 禪要經

Edit

621-622

 T1528; 涅槃經本有今無偈論; San shi fenbie lun 三世分別論; Ben you jin wu lun 本有今無論

Acording to Sakaino, LDSBJ (and KYL following it) lists a Ben you jin wu lun 本有今無論 (cf. 涅槃經本有今無偈論 T1528) in one juan, a Da banniepan jing lun 大般涅槃經論 in one juan, and a San shi fenbie lun 三世分別論 in one juan, all of which are ascribed to Paramārtha 眞諦 . Sakaino claims that these three are actually the same text, which is listed under several titles by mistake. This text was probably an excerpt from the Niepan lun 涅槃論 T1527, which Sakaino argues is probably an apocryphon [see separate CBC@ record on T1527]. He believes that T1527 and T1528 were probably originally a single text (or parts thereof), which got separated in transmission and subsequently circulated independently. The text is a commentary, in part, on a famous verse in MPNMS reading 本有今無/本無今有/三世有法/無有是處, which bears on the topic of the "three times" 三世 (past, present, future), so that all three of these alternate titles fit the content.

Edit

621-622

 Acording to Sakaino, LDSBJ (and KYL following it) lists a Ben you jin wu lun 本有今無論 (cf. 涅槃經本有今無偈論 T1528) in one juan, a Da banniepan jing lun 大般涅槃經論 in one juan, and a San shi fenbie lun 三世分別論 in one juan, all of which are ascribed to Paramartha 眞諦 . Sakaino claims that these three are actually the same text, which is listed under several titles by mistake. This text was probably an excerpt from the Niepan lun 涅槃論 T1527, which Sakaino argues is probably an apocryphon [see separate CBC@ record on T1527]. He believes that T1527 and T1528 were probably originally a single text (or parts thereof), which got separated in transmission and subsequently circulated independently. The text is a commentary, in part, on a famous verse in MPNMS reading 本有今無/本無今有/三世有法/無有是處, which bears on the topic of the "three times" 三世 (past, present, future), so that all three of these alternate titles fit the content. T1527; 涅槃論 T1528; 涅槃經本有今無偈論; San shi fenbie lun 三世分別論; Ben you jin wu lun 本有今無論

According to Sakaino, the *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā 十住論 [十住毘婆沙論 T1521] should not be ascribed to Kumārajīva, if we adopt Zhisheng’s standard (that is to say, assuming that only texts that Kumārajīva plays a major role in translating should be ascribed to him), because the “translation” of the text was performed by Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎, and Kumārajīva only helped him.

Buddhayaśas was also involved in the translation of the *Daśabhūmika 十住經 T286, but Sakaino states that the ascription to Kumārajīva does not have to be changed for that text, because the description in GSZ suggests that Kumārajīva started translating the text before Buddhayaśas arrived, and only received instruction from him afterwards.

Edit

348-349

 According to Sakaino, the *Dasabhumika-vibhasa 十住論 [十住毘婆沙論 T1521] should not be ascribed to Kumarajiva, if we adopt Zhisheng’s standard (that is to say, assuming that only texts that Kumarajiva plays a major role in translating should be ascribed to him), because the “translation” of the text was performed by Buddhayasas 佛陀耶舎, and Kumarajiva only helped him. Buddhayasas was also involved in the translation of the *Dasabhumika 十住經 T286, but Sakaino states that the ascription to Kumarajiva does not have to be changed for that text, because the description in GSZ suggests that Kumarajiva started translating the text before Buddhayasas arrived, and only received instruction from him afterwards. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0286; 十住經

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 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 Kumarajiva’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 Kumarajiva used was copied in Kucha 龜茲, preserving an older form of the text than that used by Dharmaraksa 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 Sutra (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 Kumarajiva’s translation of the text, However, Sakaino claims that there is nothing in what Zhanran says that demonstrates that Kumarajiva’s Lotus included the Devadatta chapter. T262 Devadatta Ch.

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

 Sakaino states that the view is widely accepted that the *Prajnaptipada 施設論 in seven juan (T1538, ascribed to *Dharmapala 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 Vallee 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. T1538; 施設論

Citing the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄, KYL records that the title Pusa jingjie fenxun famen jing 菩薩境界奮迅法門經 [this is the form of the title in KYL (see below); Sakaino writes 菩薩境界奮迅法問經] attributed to *Buddhaśānta is an alternate title for the Sazhe Niganzi jing 薩遮尼乾子經 [Sakaino writes 薩遮尼犍子經]. Sakaino claims that this report is another example of the confusions concerning *Buddhaśānta and Bodhiruci.

[NOTE: It is difficult to determine which text these assertions and records might refer to, and Sakaino’s possible confusion about the title above might reflect this problem. In T alone, we see the following extant texts with possibly related titles:

師子奮迅菩薩所問經 T1357 (anon.);
奮迅王問經 T421 (ascribed to *Gautama Prajñāruci);
大薩遮尼乾子所說經 T272 (ascribed to Bodhiruci), which contains such apparently related (and unique) phrase as (菩薩行方便)境界奮迅法門.

Pending resolution of these problems, this note is associated with all three of these T titles.

Cf. KYL T2154 [LV] 540c21-22, where Zhisheng gives a note to a title 大薩遮尼乾子所說經十卷, ascribed to Bodhiruci, reading: 或加受記無所說字或七卷或八卷一名菩薩境界奮迅法門經正光元年於洛陽為司州牧汝南王於第出第二譯與神通變化經同本 --- MR.]

Edit

670

 Citing the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄, KYL records that the title Pusa jingjie fenxun famen jing 菩薩境界奮迅法門經 [this is the form of the title in KYL (see below); Sakaino writes 菩薩境界奮迅法問經] attributed to *Buddhasanta is an alternate title for the Sazhe Niganzi jing 薩遮尼乾子經 [Sakaino writes 薩遮尼犍子經]. Sakaino claims that this report is another example of the confusions concerning *Buddhasanta and Bodhiruci. [NOTE: It is difficult to determine which text these assertions and records might refer to, and Sakaino’s possible confusion about the title above might reflect this problem. In T alone, we see the following extant texts with possibly related titles: 師子奮迅菩薩所問經 T1357 (anon.); 奮迅王問經 T421 (ascribed to *Gautama Prajnaruci); 大薩遮尼乾子所說經 T272 (ascribed to Bodhiruci), which contains such apparently related (and unique) phrase as (菩薩行方便)境界奮迅法門. Pending resolution of these problems, this note is associated with all three of these T titles. Cf. KYL T2154 [LV] 540c21-22, where Zhisheng gives a note to a title 大薩遮尼乾子所說經十卷, ascribed to Bodhiruci, reading: 或加受記無所說字或七卷或八卷一名菩薩境界奮迅法門經正光元年於洛陽為司州牧汝南王於第出第二譯與神通變化經同本 --- MR.] T0272; 大薩遮尼乾子所說經 T0421; 奮迅王問經 T1357; 佛說師子奮迅菩薩所問經

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 states that Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 (1 juan) is listed in CSZJJ as one of Kumarajiva’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 Dharmaraksa. 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 Dharmaraksa. 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 Kumarajiva states that it was compiled by the Bhiksu Daolue 比丘道略所集 (cf. T207), but nothing much can be inferred further than that (349). T0207; 雜譬喻經 T0208; 眾經撰雜譬喻

The Daozu catalogue 道祖錄 is mentioned in the biography of Daozu 道祖 in GSZ. LDSBJ lists the Daozu catalogue in its catalogue of texts not seen 未見經錄, but Fei Changfang mentions it in other places in LDSBJ as if he had seen it directly it (for example, Fei writes in the note to the Fahua sanmei jing 法華三昧經 [cf. T269 ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴] ascribed to Zhiliangjiangjie 支梁彊接 [支彊梁接?]: 祐云失譯。房檢及見竺道祖魏世錄及始興, T2034 [XLIX] 56c22-23). In fact, Sakaino notes that the Daozu catalogue is the source to which Fei refers most often. This indicates, Sakaino claims, that LDSBJ’s records referring to the 道祖錄 are unreliable .

Edit

318-319, 322-324

 The Daozu catalogue 道祖錄 is mentioned in the biography of Daozu 道祖 in GSZ. LDSBJ lists the Daozu catalogue in its catalogue of texts not seen 未見經錄, but Fei Changfang mentions it in other places in LDSBJ as if he had seen it directly it (for example, Fei writes in the note to the Fahua sanmei jing 法華三昧經 [cf. T269 ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴] ascribed to Zhiliangjiangjie 支梁彊接 [支彊梁接?]: 祐云失譯。房檢及見竺道祖魏世錄及始興, T2034 [XLIX] 56c22-23). In fact, Sakaino notes that the Daozu catalogue is the source to which Fei refers most often. This indicates, Sakaino claims, that LDSBJ’s records referring to the 道祖錄 are unreliable . Daozu lu 道祖錄 T2034; 歷代三寶紀

According to Sakaino, Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, alleges that the following eight catalogues existed before Dao’an: the Gu lu 古錄, the Jiu lu 舊錄, the catalogue of Buddhist scriptures of the Han 漢時佛經目錄, Zhu Shixing’s catalogue of the Han 朱士行漢錄, the Dharmarakṣa catalogue 竺法護錄, the Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄, the Zhao catalogue 趙錄, and the Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄,

Sakaino claims that of those eight, the existence of the Gu lu, Jiu lu, and the Han catalogue can easily be refuted, since it would have made no sense to compile catalogues when there existed so few scriptures to be included in them.

Edit

322-324

 According to Sakaino, Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, alleges that the following eight catalogues existed before Dao’an: the Gu lu 古錄, the Jiu lu 舊錄, the catalogue of Buddhist scriptures of the Han 漢時佛經目錄, Zhu Shixing’s catalogue of the Han 朱士行漢錄, the Dharmaraksa catalogue 竺法護錄, the Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄, the Zhao catalogue 趙錄, and the Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄, Sakaino claims that of those eight, the existence of the Gu lu, Jiu lu, and the Han catalogue can easily be refuted, since it would have made no sense to compile catalogues when there existed so few scriptures to be included in them. Gu lu 古錄 Han catalogue of Buddhist scriptures 漢時佛經目錄 Jiu lu 舊錄 T2034; 歷代三寶紀

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 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 Kasyapa Matanga 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 Lokanuvartana-sutra 内藏經, ascribed to An Shigao (cf. T807, ascribed to *Lokaksema); - Five titles, including a Dun zhen tuoluoni [sic!] jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, ascribed to *Lokaksema; - an Astasahasrika prajnaparamita 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 Vimalakirti-nirdesa 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 Pratimoksa, so could not have been produced when no version of the Pratimoksa 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 *Dharmaraksa). 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 Dharmaraksa, 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 Dharmaraksa. The ascription of a Lokanuvartana-sutra to An Shigao is odd, as this is a Mahayana text while all the works of An Shigao are “hinayana.” Sakaino suspects that this record actually refers to内藏百寶經 T807, ascribed to *Lokaksema. The other twelve titles ascribed to An Shigao are all listed as “hinayana” texts in Sengyou’s catalogue, and are hence less problematic. Four of the five titles ascribed to *Lokaksema, 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 Drumakinnararaja-pariprccha 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 *dharani 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 Astasahasrika 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 Vimalakirti-nirdesa 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, Dharmaraksa 竺法護, and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭) referred to by Zhi Mindu, when he compiled the his synoptic Vimalakirti-nirdesa 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. T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T0784; 四十二章經 T2034; 歷代三寶紀 Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄

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 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. Zhao catalogue 趙錄

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

 The Jueding zang lun 決定藏論 (T1584 ascribed to Paramartha) was first listed by KYL. Sakaino states that the ascription to Paramartha 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). Paramartha, 真諦 T1584; 決定藏論

Sakaino claims that titles such as Fan zhi lun 反質論, Duo zhi lun 堕負論, and Zheng lun daoli lun 正論道理論 in the group of Paramārtha’s works in LDSBJ are mistaken entries taken from the contents of the 如實論 [如實論 反質難品 T1633 ascribed to Paramārtha].

Edit

721-722

 Sakaino claims that titles such as Fan zhi lun 反質論, Duo zhi lun 堕負論, and Zheng lun daoli lun 正論道理論 in the group of Paramartha’s works in LDSBJ are mistaken entries taken from the contents of the 如實論 [如實論 反質難品 T1633 ascribed to Paramartha]. T1633; Fan zhi lun 反質論; 如實論; Duo zhi lun 堕負論; Zheng lun daoli lun 正論道理論

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 reviews different views about the translation of the *Dasabhumika-sutra-sastra 十地經論 T1522. XGSZ records that the three scholars involved [Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, and *Buddhasanta] 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 *Buddhasanta 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. Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 Buddhasanta, 佛陀扇多 Cui Guang 崔光 Ratnamati, 勒那摩提 T1522; 十地經論

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 argues that the so-called Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄 reported by Fei Changfang was actually a catalogue of the works of Dharmaraksa 竺法護錄 compiled by Nie Daozhen. Fei Changfang mistakenly understood that a “Nie Daozhen catalogue” separate from the “Dharmaraksa 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 “Dharmaraksa catalogue” was probably, in fact, a simple list made by Nie Daozhen to record the works of his master Dharmaraksa. [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.] Dharmaraksa catalogue 竺法護錄 Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 Song shi zhongjing bielu 宋時眾經別錄; Bielu 別錄; Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄 T0188; 異出菩薩本起經 T0282; Pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 菩薩求佛本業經; 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T0463; 佛說文殊師利般涅槃經 T0483; 三曼陀跋陀羅菩薩經 T1502; 菩薩受齋經 T2034; 歷代三寶紀

In the process of discussing the biography of Bodhiruci (of the N. Wei), Sakaino quotes passages from LDSBJ, XGSZ 續髙僧傳 , and the Li Kuo lu 李廓錄 (as quoted in XGSZ). Sakaino then points out that although Li Kuo compiled his catalogue by the order of emperor Xuanwu 宣武 of the N. Wei 北魏 (r. 499-515), the catalogue records events in the Tianping 天平 era of emperor Xiaojing 孝靜(靖) of the E. Wei 東魏 (534-437). Sakaino conjectures that probably the Li Kuo catalogue was revised in the Tianping era.

Edit

658-659

 In the process of discussing the biography of Bodhiruci (of the N. Wei), Sakaino quotes passages from LDSBJ, XGSZ 續髙僧傳 , and the Li Kuo lu 李廓錄 (as quoted in XGSZ). Sakaino then points out that although Li Kuo compiled his catalogue by the order of emperor Xuanwu 宣武 of the N. Wei 北魏 (r. 499-515), the catalogue records events in the Tianping 天平 era of emperor Xiaojing 孝靜(靖) of the E. Wei 東魏 (534-437). Sakaino conjectures that probably the Li Kuo catalogue was revised in the Tianping era. Yuan Wei zhongjing lumu 元魏眾經錄目; Li Kuo's catalogue 李廓錄; Wei shi zhongjing lumu 魏世眾經錄目

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 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 *Dasabhumika-sutra-sastra 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. T2034; 歷代三寶紀 Yuan Wei zhongjing lumu 元魏眾經錄目; Li Kuo's catalogue 李廓錄; Wei shi zhongjing lumu 魏世眾經錄目

LDSBJ records a “Bodhiruci catalogue” 菩提流支錄, but it is not cited for any work of Bodhiruci. [In fact, Fei lists it among catalogues he never saw, T2034 [XLIX] 127c11; and the only work for which he cites it is the Fu fa zang zhuan 付法藏傳, which he ascribes to Tanyao 曇曜, 85a25 --- MR].

Edit

659-661

 LDSBJ records a “Bodhiruci catalogue” 菩提流支錄, but it is not cited for any work of Bodhiruci. [In fact, Fei lists it among catalogues he never saw, T2034 [XLIX] 127c11; and the only work for which he cites it is the Fu fa zang zhuan 付法藏傳, which he ascribes to Tanyao 曇曜, 85a25 --- MR]. Putiluizhi lu 菩提流支錄, "Bodhiruci catalogue"

According to Sakaino, KYL follows LDSBJ regarding the works of *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多. Sakaino claims that the Rulai shizi hou jing 如来師子吼經 (T835 ascribed to *Buddhaśānta) was probably co-translated by *Buddhaśānta and Bodhiruci, as recorded in Fajing, but later misunderstood as two different texts, one ascribed to *Buddhaśānta and the other ascribed to Bodhiruci.

Edit

668-670

 According to Sakaino, KYL follows LDSBJ regarding the works of *Buddhasanta 佛陀扇多. Sakaino claims that the Rulai shizi hou jing 如来師子吼經 (T835 ascribed to *Buddhasanta) was probably co-translated by *Buddhasanta and Bodhiruci, as recorded in Fajing, but later misunderstood as two different texts, one ascribed to *Buddhasanta and the other ascribed to Bodhiruci. Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 Buddhasanta, 佛陀扇多 T0835; 如來師子吼經

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

 Not much is known about Ratnamati 勒那摩提. LDSBJ double-lists the *Dasabhumika-sutra-sastra 十地經論 T1522, the Commentary on the Kasyapaparivarta [大]寶積經論 T1523, the Ratnagotravibhaga 究竟一乗寶性論 T1611, and the Fahua jing lun 法華經論 T1520 (commentary on the Lotus Sutra), 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. Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 Ratnamati, 勒那摩提 T1520; 妙法蓮華經論優波提舍 T1522; 十地經論 T1523; 大寶積經論 T1611; 究竟一乘寶性論

LDSBJ ascribes the Vyāsa-paripṛcchā 毘耶娑問經 (T354, ascribed presently to *Gautama Prajnāruci 瞿曇般若流支) to Ratnamati 勒那摩提. However, Sakaino points out that the preface of the text records that it was translated by *Gautama Ruci 瞿曇流支, so the ascription to Ratnamati given by LDSBJ is clearly incorrect.

Edit

671

 LDSBJ ascribes the Vyasa-pariprccha 毘耶娑問經 (T354, ascribed presently to *Gautama Prajnaruci 瞿曇般若流支) to Ratnamati 勒那摩提. However, Sakaino points out that the preface of the text records that it was translated by *Gautama Ruci 瞿曇流支, so the ascription to Ratnamati given by LDSBJ is clearly incorrect. *(Gautama) Prajnaruci, 般若流支, 瞿曇般若流支, 瞿曇流支, 瞿曇般若留支 T0354; 毘耶娑問經

According to Sakaino, the Shi Lao zhi 釋老志 states that the contranslator of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 with Tanyao 曇曜 was not Jijiaye 吉迦夜, but Changnayeshe 常那耶舍 (which Sakaino reconstructs as *Jnānayaśas).

Edit

675

 According to Sakaino, the Shi Lao zhi 釋老志 states that the contranslator of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 with Tanyao 曇曜 was not Jijiaye 吉迦夜, but Changnayeshe 常那耶舍 (which Sakaino reconstructs as *Jnanayasas). Changnayeshe 常那耶舍, *Jnanayasas? Tanyao, 曇曜 T2058; 付法藏因緣傳

KYL lists the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 twice, ascribing it once to Tanyao 曇曜 (with the title Fu fazang zhuan 付法藏傳) and once to Jijiaye 吉迦夜 (with the title Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳). KYL adds to the entry for the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan a note that the text is identical to that translated by Zhiyan of the Song and Tanyao of the Wei 與宋智嚴魏曇曜出者同本 (T2154 [LV], 540a9). Sakaino claims that Zhisheng probably just followed LDSBJ stating that the Tanyao version was a retranslation 重譯, and that it is improbable that Tanyao and Jijiaye translated the same text separately.

Edit

675

 KYL lists the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 twice, ascribing it once to Tanyao 曇曜 (with the title Fu fazang zhuan 付法藏傳) and once to Jijiaye 吉迦夜 (with the title Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳). KYL adds to the entry for the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan a note that the text is identical to that translated by Zhiyan of the Song and Tanyao of the Wei 與宋智嚴魏曇曜出者同本 (T2154 [LV], 540a9). Sakaino claims that Zhisheng probably just followed LDSBJ stating that the Tanyao version was a retranslation 重譯, and that it is improbable that Tanyao and Jijiaye translated the same text separately. T2058; 付法藏因緣傳

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

 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. Jijiaye, 吉迦夜, *Kivkara?, *Kimkara?, *Kimkarya? Tanyao, 曇曜 T2058; 付法藏因緣傳

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

 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 *Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, the Analu 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 *Lokaksema’s works, including the Drumakinnararaja-pariprccha 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 *Dharmaksema. 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 nu 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 *Dharmaksema 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. Gu lu 古錄 Jiu lu 舊錄 Song shi zhongjing bielu 宋時眾經別錄; Bielu 別錄; Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄 T2034; 歷代三寶紀

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

 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 Kasyapa Matanga [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. T0784; 四十二章經

LDSBJ lists both a Xin daoxing jing 新道行經 [“new Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā”] in 10 juan and a Xiao pin jing 小品經 [“smaller Prajñāpāramitā”, which should also be a version of the Aṣṭa] in 7 juan as works of Dharmarakṣa. Fei maintains that Dharmarakṣa translated two Xiao pin jing and that the Xin (“new”) daoxing jing is very different from the Jiu (“old”) daoxing [jing] 舊道行 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, while the Xiao ping jing is similar to the Jiu daoxing jing. Sakaino claims that none of these records are reliable, pointing out that Dao’an is the most reliable source regarding Dharmarakṣa, but according to him, Dharmarakṣa did not translate a Xiao pin jing. According to Sakaino, Sengyou, in CSZJJ, mistook the Guangzan banre jing 光讚般若 [光讚經 T222], which is a “Larger” Prajñāpāramitā 大品 [something like a forerunner of the eventual Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā], for a “Smaller” 小品, and also mistook an alternate translation of the same text, the Fangguang [banre jing] 放光[般若經] ascribed to Zhu Shixing 朱士行 (cf. T221 ascribed to *Mokṣala) for another “Smaller” Prajñāpāramitā (Sengyou commented:一名舊小品, T2145 [LV] 7b7;竺法護更出小品經七卷, 14a2). The first of these two so-called “Smaller” Prajñāpāramitā refers to the T222, but LDSBJ wrongly listed it as a different text.

Edit

314-316

 LDSBJ lists both a Xin daoxing jing 新道行經 [“new Astasahasrika prajnaparamita”] in 10 juan and a Xiao pin jing 小品經 [“smaller Prajnaparamita”, which should also be a version of the Asta] in 7 juan as works of Dharmaraksa. Fei maintains that Dharmaraksa translated two Xiao pin jing and that the Xin (“new”) daoxing jing is very different from the Jiu (“old”) daoxing [jing] 舊道行 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, while the Xiao ping jing is similar to the Jiu daoxing jing. Sakaino claims that none of these records are reliable, pointing out that Dao’an is the most reliable source regarding Dharmaraksa, but according to him, Dharmaraksa did not translate a Xiao pin jing. According to Sakaino, Sengyou, in CSZJJ, mistook the Guangzan banre jing 光讚般若 [光讚經 T222], which is a “Larger” Prajnaparamita 大品 [something like a forerunner of the eventual Pancavimsatisahasrika prajnaparamita], for a “Smaller” 小品, and also mistook an alternate translation of the same text, the Fangguang [banre jing] 放光[般若經] ascribed to Zhu Shixing 朱士行 (cf. T221 ascribed to *Moksala) for another “Smaller” Prajnaparamita (Sengyou commented:一名舊小品, T2145 [LV] 7b7;竺法護更出小品經七卷, 14a2). The first of these two so-called “Smaller” Prajnaparamita refers to the T222, but LDSBJ wrongly listed it as a different text. T0221; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 放光般若經 T0222; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 光讚經

Fajing ascribes T305 to Bodhiruci.

Edit

662-664

 Fajing ascribes T305 to Bodhiruci. T0305; 信力入印法門經

Fajing ascribes T835 to Bodhiruci and *Buddhaśānta.

Edit

662-664

 Fajing ascribes T835 to Bodhiruci and *Buddhasanta. T0835; 如來師子吼經

Fajing ascribes T357 to Bodhiruci.

Edit

663-664

 Fajing ascribes T357 to Bodhiruci. T0357; 如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切佛境界經

Fajing ascribes T162 to Bodhiruci [written as 留支]. LDSBJ ascribes it to Dharmaruci 曇摩流支, mentioning that Bodhiruci’s translation of the same text is listed in Fashang’s catalogue.

Edit

663-664

 Fajing ascribes T162 to Bodhiruci [written as 留支]. LDSBJ ascribes it to Dharmaruci 曇摩流支, mentioning that Bodhiruci’s translation of the same text is listed in Fashang’s catalogue. T0162; 金色王經

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 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. T0305; 信力入印法門經 T0357; 如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切佛境界經

Sakaino argues that the Ba bu Fo ming jing 八部佛名經 (T429 ascribed to *Gautama Prajnāruci 瞿曇般若流支) should be reclassified as anonymous. His reasoning are: six alternate translations are reported for the same text, five of which are extant. However, there is no evidence that T429 is the version translated by *Prajnāruci. Sakaino thinks that Fei took the anonymous Ba bu Fo ming jing in Sengyou's newly compiled catalogue of anonymous works 新集失譯錄 in CSZJJ, and listed it as the Ba Fo jing 八佛經 that he ascribed to *Prajnāruci in LDSBJ. Zhisheng believed this report, without duly observing that CSZJJ’s anonymous title was indeed the same as the text now ascribed to *Prajnāruci, and listed it with the original title Ba bu Fo ming jing. However, Sakaino points out that the vocabulary of T429 is rather old, such as 薜荔[v.l. 茘], and could not have been used by the same translator at that of *Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra 正法念處經 (T721 ascribed to *Prajnāruci). Thus, T429 should be regarded as the anonymous Ba bu Fo ming jing listed in CSZJJ.

Edit

667-668

 Sakaino argues that the Ba bu Fo ming jing 八部佛名經 (T429 ascribed to *Gautama Prajnaruci 瞿曇般若流支) should be reclassified as anonymous. His reasoning are: six alternate translations are reported for the same text, five of which are extant. However, there is no evidence that T429 is the version translated by *Prajnaruci. Sakaino thinks that Fei took the anonymous Ba bu Fo ming jing in Sengyou's newly compiled catalogue of anonymous works 新集失譯錄 in CSZJJ, and listed it as the Ba Fo jing 八佛經 that he ascribed to *Prajnaruci in LDSBJ. Zhisheng believed this report, without duly observing that CSZJJ’s anonymous title was indeed the same as the text now ascribed to *Prajnaruci, and listed it with the original title Ba bu Fo ming jing. However, Sakaino points out that the vocabulary of T429 is rather old, such as 薜荔[v.l. 茘], and could not have been used by the same translator at that of *Saddharmasmrtyupasthana-sutra 正法念處經 (T721 ascribed to *Prajnaruci). Thus, T429 should be regarded as the anonymous Ba bu Fo ming jing listed in CSZJJ. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0429; 佛說八部佛名經

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

 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てあることは否むことの出来ぬものてある --- AI.] T1492; 佛說舍利弗悔過經

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

 Sakaino states that after the translation of the longer/full Vinaya 廣律, the “Bhiksuni Pratimoksa 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. T1437; 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本

The Apitan piposha lun 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 in sixty juan (T1546 by Kātyāyanīputra 迦旃延子, with the translation ascribed to *Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩 and Daotai 道泰) is an alternate translation of the *(Mahā-)Vibhāṣā 毘婆沙論. The original text should have been roughly identical with the version translated by Xuanzang 玄奘, T1545. T1546 originally comprised one hundred juan, and was a complete translation of the original, but the text went missing in the chaos of wartime, and only sixty juan were later recovered. According to a preface to the text attributed to Daoting 道梃, the original text for the translation was brought to China by Daotai. Sakaino states that there is no objective basis for the view that Daotai participated in the translation of the text alongside *Buddhavarman.

Edit

761-762

 The Apitan piposha lun 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 in sixty juan (T1546 by Katyayaniputra 迦旃延子, with the translation ascribed to *Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩 and Daotai 道泰) is an alternate translation of the *(Maha-)Vibhasa 毘婆沙論. The original text should have been roughly identical with the version translated by Xuanzang 玄奘, T1545. T1546 originally comprised one hundred juan, and was a complete translation of the original, but the text went missing in the chaos of wartime, and only sixty juan were later recovered. According to a preface to the text attributed to Daoting 道梃, the original text for the translation was brought to China by Daotai. Sakaino states that there is no objective basis for the view that Daotai participated in the translation of the text alongside *Buddhavarman. *Buddhavarman, 浮陀跋摩 T1546; 阿毘曇毘婆沙論

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

 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 Dharmaraksa) 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 Dharmaraksa 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.] Zhi Qian 支謙 T0623; 佛說如來獨證自誓三昧經

LDSBJ ascribes a Xiuxing dao di jing 修行道地經 (Yogācārabhūmi, cf. T606 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa) in seven juan to An Shigao (cf. T607), stating that it is sometimes reported to comprise six juan, and was translated in Yongkang 永康 1 of the Han. Sakaino claims that this entry must transcribe some mistaken record, probably stemming from confusing over T606 (ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, six juan), which was translated in the Taikang 大康 era of the W. Jin.

Edit

859

 LDSBJ ascribes a Xiuxing dao di jing 修行道地經 (Yogacarabhumi, cf. T606 ascribed to Dharmaraksa) in seven juan to An Shigao (cf. T607), stating that it is sometimes reported to comprise six juan, and was translated in Yongkang 永康 1 of the Han. Sakaino claims that this entry must transcribe some mistaken record, probably stemming from confusing over T606 (ascribed to Dharmaraksa, six juan), which was translated in the Taikang 大康 era of the W. Jin. T0606; 偷迦遮復彌經 *Yogacarabhumi-sutra; 修行經; 修行道地經 T0607; 道地經

Sakaino states that many of the Chan-related anonymous scriptures in 失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ are either excerpts of some other scriptures or short and fragmentary pieces. For example, the Chan yao he yu jing 禪要呵欲經, an extant text now entitled Chan yao jing 禪要經 (T609, which in T carries a byline indicating that it is an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han), begins with a heading stating that it is “the first chapter, 'He yu' 訶欲 [rebuking desire]” 訶欲品第一, indicating that the text is an excerpt from a larger text. The dating to the Eastern Han was first given in LDSBJ, apparently without any objective grounds.

Edit

863-864

 Sakaino states that many of the Chan-related anonymous scriptures in 失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ are either excerpts of some other scriptures or short and fragmentary pieces. For example, the Chan yao he yu jing 禪要呵欲經, an extant text now entitled Chan yao jing 禪要經 (T609, which in T carries a byline indicating that it is an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han), begins with a heading stating that it is “the first chapter, 'He yu' 訶欲 [rebuking desire]” 訶欲品第一, indicating that the text is an excerpt from a larger text. The dating to the Eastern Han was first given in LDSBJ, apparently without any objective grounds. T0609; 禪要經

Sakaino states that the ascription of the Pusa shou zhai jing 菩薩受齋經 (T1502) to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞 is dubious because it was first given by LDSBJ, whereas in CSZJJ the same title was included in the newly compiled catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 新集失譯雜經錄. CSZJJ also lists a Pusa zhai fa 菩薩齋法, which it ascribes to Dharmarakṣa, as a missing scripture 闕失譯經. Sakaino claims that the ascription to Nie Daozhen probably came from a record stating that Dharmarakṣa was the translator 譯出 and Nie Daozhen worked as amanuensis 筆受, since it is highly unlikely that a teacher and his disciple, viz., Dharmarakṣa and Nie Daozhen, both translated separate versions of the same text (as recorded in CSZJJ and LDSBJ).

Edit

853

 Sakaino states that the ascription of the Pusa shou zhai jing 菩薩受齋經 (T1502) to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞 is dubious because it was first given by LDSBJ, whereas in CSZJJ the same title was included in the newly compiled catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 新集失譯雜經錄. CSZJJ also lists a Pusa zhai fa 菩薩齋法, which it ascribes to Dharmaraksa, as a missing scripture 闕失譯經. Sakaino claims that the ascription to Nie Daozhen probably came from a record stating that Dharmaraksa was the translator 譯出 and Nie Daozhen worked as amanuensis 筆受, since it is highly unlikely that a teacher and his disciple, viz., Dharmaraksa and Nie Daozhen, both translated separate versions of the same text (as recorded in CSZJJ and LDSBJ). T1502; 菩薩受齋經

The ascription of the Jitiaoyin suowen jing 寂調音所問經 T1490 (cf. T1489, T460) to Fahai 法海 first appears in LDSBJ, which cites the Shixing catalogue 始興錄 and Fashang’s catalogue 法上錄. No biographical information has been found about Fahai. An anonymous Jitiaoyin suowen jing is listed in the newly compiled catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 新集失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ, with the alternate title Rulai suoshuo qingjing tiaofu 如來所説清淨調伏 (T2145 [LV] 22c5). [Sakaino is apparently suggesting that the ascription to 法海 is dubious, but he does not state it explicitly --- AI]

Edit

851

 The ascription of the Jitiaoyin suowen jing 寂調音所問經 T1490 (cf. T1489, T460) to Fahai 法海 first appears in LDSBJ, which cites the Shixing catalogue 始興錄 and Fashang’s catalogue 法上錄. No biographical information has been found about Fahai. An anonymous Jitiaoyin suowen jing is listed in the newly compiled catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 新集失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ, with the alternate title Rulai suoshuo qingjing tiaofu 如來所説清淨調伏 (T2145 [LV] 22c5). [Sakaino is apparently suggesting that the ascription to 法海 is dubious, but he does not state it explicitly --- AI] T1490; Rulai suoshuo qingjing tiaofu 如來所說清淨調伏; 寂調音所問經

The *Abhidharmaprakaraṇapāda 衆事分阿毘曇論 (T1541 by Vasumitra 世友, ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 and Bodhiyaśas 菩提耶舍) is the alternate translation of the 品類足論 (阿毘達磨品類足論 T1542, ascribed to Xuanzang 玄奘). Nothing is recorded about this text in CSZJJ, and it first appears in LDSBJ as one of the works of Guṇabhadra with a note saying that it was translated together with Bodhiyaśas 共菩提耶舍譯. However, nothing about translation work on T1541, or Bodhiyaśas himself, is recorded in GSZ.

Edit

773

 The *Abhidharmaprakaranapada 衆事分阿毘曇論 (T1541 by Vasumitra 世友, ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 and Bodhiyasas 菩提耶舍) is the alternate translation of the 品類足論 (阿毘達磨品類足論 T1542, ascribed to Xuanzang 玄奘). Nothing is recorded about this text in CSZJJ, and it first appears in LDSBJ as one of the works of Gunabhadra with a note saying that it was translated together with Bodhiyasas 共菩提耶舍譯. However, nothing about translation work on T1541, or Bodhiyasas himself, is recorded in GSZ. T1541; 眾事分阿毘曇論

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

 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 Dharmaraksa) 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 Dharmaraksa 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.] Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0622; 佛說自誓三昧經

LDSBJ lists a Wu men chan yao fa jing 五門禪要法經 ascribed to An Shigao, but Sakaino claims probably this entry reports erroneous information about the Wu men chan jing yaoyong fa 五門禪經要用法 (T619) ascribed to Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多. Sakaino adds that KYL lists a Wu men chan yaoyong fa jing 五門禪要用法經 at two different places, but these entries are erroneous and actually redundant.

Edit

860-861

 LDSBJ lists a Wu men chan yao fa jing 五門禪要法經 ascribed to An Shigao, but Sakaino claims probably this entry reports erroneous information about the Wu men chan jing yaoyong fa 五門禪經要用法 (T619) ascribed to Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多. Sakaino adds that KYL lists a Wu men chan yaoyong fa jing 五門禪要用法經 at two different places, but these entries are erroneous and actually redundant. T0619; 五門禪經要用法

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 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 Analu ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 (T46 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜). T0046; 阿那律八念經; Jian yi xiang zheng jing 撿意向正經; Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經; Ba nian jing 八念經

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

 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 (*bodhipaksikah dharmah). T0604; 佛說禪行三十七品經

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 maintains that the Mahayana Awakening of Faith 大乗起信論 (T1666) is not apocryphal. Fajing was the first to suspect the ascription to Paramartha, 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 Paramartha. 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 Paramartha 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. T1666; 大乘起信論

Sakaino states that he agrees with the view that the Shiba bu lun十八部論 (Samayabhedoparacanacakra T2032 ascribed to Paramārtha) is not Paramārtha’s work but Kumārajīva’s. The Bu zhi yi lun 部執異論 (T2033 ascribed to Paramārtha, an alternative translation of the same work) was also called the Shiba bu lun.

Edit

722

 Sakaino states that he agrees with the view that the Shiba bu lun十八部論 (Samayabhedoparacanacakra T2032 ascribed to Paramartha) is not Paramartha’s work but Kumarajiva’s. The Bu zhi yi lun 部執異論 (T2033 ascribed to Paramartha, an alternative translation of the same work) was also called the Shiba bu lun. T2032; 十八部論; *Samayabhedoparacanacakra T2033; 部執異論; *Samayabhedoparacanacakra

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 “Sutra of Humane Kings” 仁王般若經 ascribed to Paramartha 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. Renwang bore jing 仁王般若經

The Yi jiao jing lun 遺教經論 (T1529 by Vasubandhu 天親 ascribed to Paramārtha) has been recorded in catalogues since LDSBJ, but it is probably apocryphal.

Edit

723

 The Yi jiao jing lun 遺教經論 (T1529 by Vasubandhu 天親 ascribed to Paramartha) has been recorded in catalogues since LDSBJ, but it is probably apocryphal. T1529; 遺教經論

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

 There exist two versions of the Dharmaguptaka Pratimoksa 四分戒本 both ascribed to Buddhayasas 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 Buddhayasas, and the other was edited from the longer/full Vinaya 廣律, but mistaken for the work of Buddhayasas. 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 Pratimoksa for monks 比丘戒本 and Pratimoksa for nuns 比丘尼戒本. Sakaino suspects that those variations were the result of transcribing processes and oral transmission. T1429; 四分律比丘戒本 T1430; 四分僧戒本

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

 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 *Bodhidipa/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. T0839; 占察善惡業報經

The tone and phraseology of the anonymous Shou shi shan jie jing 受十善戒經 (T1486), which a byline carried in T still treats as translated in the Eastern Han period 後漢失譯, indicate that the text is newer than the Eastern Han. This title first appears in newly compiled sequel to the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ, but LDSBJ ascribes the text to the Eastern Han without any factual basis.

Edit

847-848

 The tone and phraseology of the anonymous Shou shi shan jie jing 受十善戒經 (T1486), which a byline carried in T still treats as translated in the Eastern Han period 後漢失譯, indicate that the text is newer than the Eastern Han. This title first appears in newly compiled sequel to the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ, but LDSBJ ascribes the text to the Eastern Han without any factual basis. T1486; 受十善戒經

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

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

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 states that the ascription of the Shijialuoyue liu fang li jing 尸迦羅越六方禮經 (T16 *Singala-sutra) 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 Madhyamagama 中阿含經 T26(135). T0016; 尸迦羅越六方禮經

Quoting a document entitled 關中近出尼二種檀文夏坐雜十二事并雜事共卷前中後三記 (CSZJJ, T2145 [LV] 81b19-82a17), Sakaino summarises details about the process of translation of a Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa, which he identifies with the Sarvāstivāda Shi song biqiuni jie ben 十誦比丘尼戒本 T1437. According to Sakaino’s summary: The original text was given by 佛圖舌彌 (Buddhaśamī?) in Kuchā 龜玆 to Sengchun 僧純 and Tanchong 曇充. Not only the 尼戒本, but other similar materials (壇文, 夏坐, and 雑事) were also translated. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 “handled the text” 執本, and Tanmoshi 曇摩侍 was the “oral translator/interpreter” 傳語.

Edit

280-281

 Quoting a document entitled 關中近出尼二種檀文夏坐雜十二事并雜事共卷前中後三記 (CSZJJ, T2145 [LV] 81b19-82a17), Sakaino summarises details about the process of translation of a Bhiksuni Pratimoksa, which he identifies with the Sarvastivada Shi song biqiuni jie ben 十誦比丘尼戒本 T1437. According to Sakaino’s summary: The original text was given by 佛圖舌彌 (Buddhasami?) in Kucha 龜玆 to Sengchun 僧純 and Tanchong 曇充. Not only the 尼戒本, but other similar materials (壇文, 夏坐, and 雑事) were also translated. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 “handled the text” 執本, and Tanmoshi 曇摩侍 was the “oral translator/interpreter” 傳語. Tanmoshi 曇摩侍 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T1437; 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本

The ascription of the Za jiemo 雜羯磨 [曇無徳律部雜羯磨 T1432] to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 appears in KYL for the first time, not being recorded in CSZJJ or LDSBJ. Sakaino states that this ascription remains doubtful for the same reasons as for T1470 and T1467 (see separate CBC@ entries).

Edit

779

 The ascription of the Za jiemo 雜羯磨 [曇無徳律部雜羯磨 T1432] to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 appears in KYL for the first time, not being recorded in CSZJJ or LDSBJ. Sakaino states that this ascription remains doubtful for the same reasons as for T1470 and T1467 (see separate CBC@ entries). T1432; 曇無德律部雜羯磨

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

 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]. T1477; Jie xiaofu 戒消伏; 佛說戒消災經

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

 The *Vinayamatrka 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 lu 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 Kumarajiva, but this is nothing more than speculation. T1463; 毘尼母經

Sengyou records that Dharmarakṣa translated both a Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 and a Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 (which should both correspond to the *Śūraṃgama[samādhi]-sūtra, one by transcription, one by translation), but Sakaino stated that it is highly unlikely that Dharmarakṣa translated the same text twice. KYL pointed out this mistake. Sakaino argues that the phrase geng chu Shoulengyan 更出首楞嚴, in the note on the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 reading 安公云更出首楞嚴, should mean that the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 was an alternate translation of the Shouleng yan jing 首楞嚴經 ascribed to *Lokakṣema, not that Dharmarakṣa translated the same text twice. Sakaino conjectures that probably Dharmarakṣa produced his 勇伏定經 because he had a different version of the original 梵本. However, Sakaino admits that his view on this matter is not decisive, since it is still true that Dao’an mentions both titles.

Edit

166, 169, 195

 Sengyou records that Dharmaraksa translated both a Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 and a Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 (which should both correspond to the *Suramgama[samadhi]-sutra, one by transcription, one by translation), but Sakaino stated that it is highly unlikely that Dharmaraksa translated the same text twice. KYL pointed out this mistake. Sakaino argues that the phrase geng chu Shoulengyan 更出首楞嚴, in the note on the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 reading 安公云更出首楞嚴, should mean that the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 was an alternate translation of the Shouleng yan jing 首楞嚴經 ascribed to *Lokaksema, not that Dharmaraksa translated the same text twice. Sakaino conjectures that probably Dharmaraksa produced his 勇伏定經 because he had a different version of the original 梵本. However, Sakaino admits that his view on this matter is not decisive, since it is still true that Dao’an mentions both titles. *Suramgamasamadhi-sutra; Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 Yong fu ding jing 勇伏定經 [Suramgamasamadhi-sutra]

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

 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 Mahayana “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. T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經

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 discusses in detail some six to ten versions of the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra which are reported by tradition to have existed at one time or another. T0642; *Suramgamasamadhi-sutra; 佛說首楞嚴三昧經

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

 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 Prajnaruci 般若流支. T2076; 景德傳燈錄

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

 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 Daijo, 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. Huitong of Zhicheng si 治城寺惠通 牟子理惑論, Mouzi li huo lun

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 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、道安か佛圖澄の墓に詣し、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てある (768). Si ahanmu chao xu 四阿含暮抄序

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 “*Dhyana sutra” 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 Kumarajiva (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. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0616; 禪法要解

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 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. T1467; 佛說犯戒罪報輕重經 T1470; 大比丘三千威儀

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

 Sakaino states that LDSBJ records three translations of the Chan mi yao jing 禪秘要經: by Zhi Qian, Kumarajiva, 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 Kumarajiva’s versions. In the Taisho 現存藏, the Chan mi yao fa jing 禪祕要法經 (T613) is ascribed to Kumarajiva. Sakaino maintains that this ascription to Kumarajiva 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 Kumarajiva’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. *Dharmamitra, 曇摩蜜多 T0613; 禪祕要法經

In discussing the ascription of the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith 大乗起信論 T1666, Sakaino quotes Fajing, who mentions a catalogue of Paramārtha’s works: 人云真諦譯勘真諦錄無此論故入疑 (2146 [LV] 142a16). Sakaino mentions the following titles as works that might have contained this Zhendi lu 真諦錄, viz., a list of Paramārtha’s translations: the Fanyi li 翻譯歴 by Zhijiao 知敫; the Bie lu 別歴 by Caopi 曹毗[毘], and the Xingzhuang 行状 by Sengzong 僧宗.

Edit

708-709

 In discussing the ascription of the Mahayana Awakening of Faith 大乗起信論 T1666, Sakaino quotes Fajing, who mentions a catalogue of Paramartha’s works: 人云真諦譯勘真諦錄無此論故入疑 (2146 [LV] 142a16). Sakaino mentions the following titles as works that might have contained this Zhendi lu 真諦錄, viz., a list of Paramartha’s translations: the Fanyi li 翻譯歴 by Zhijiao 知敫; the Bie lu 別歴 by Caopi 曹毗[毘], and the Xingzhuang 行状 by Sengzong 僧宗. Zhendi lu 真諦錄

Sakaino states that the ascription of the Brahmajāla-sūtra 梵網六十二見經 [T21 ascribed to Zhi Qian], corresponding to DĀ 21, has been regarded as dubious since the time of traditional catalogues.

Edit

741

 Sakaino states that the ascription of the Brahmajala-sutra 梵網六十二見經 [T21 ascribed to Zhi Qian], corresponding to DA 21, has been regarded as dubious since the time of traditional catalogues. T0021; 梵網六十二見經

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

 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 Samyuktagama 雜阿含第二十八卷, Sakaino checked and found that T112 is different from that part of SA. T0112; 佛說八正道經; 雜阿含三十章

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

 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). T1507; Zengyi ahan jing shu 增壹阿含經疏; 分別功德論

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

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

KYL is incorrect in ascribing the 三法度[論 T1506] and the 僧伽羅刹[所集經 T194] to *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, as these ascriptions were given initially by the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 or LDSBJ.

Edit

228

 KYL is incorrect in ascribing the 三法度[論 T1506] and the 僧伽羅刹[所集經 T194] to *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, as these ascriptions were given initially by the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 or LDSBJ. T0194; 僧伽羅剎所集經 T1506; 三法度論

Sakaino includes the Xiao dao ji jing 小道地經 (T608 ascribed to Zhi Yao) in his list of dubious Chan-related anonymous scriptures, commenting that it is groundlessly ascribed to Zhi Yao. Sakaino explains why the ascription to Zhi Yao should be incorrect elsewhere in the same book (as summarised in other CBC@ entries), but he does not explain why this anonymous text is “dubious.”

Edit

874

 Sakaino includes the Xiao dao ji jing 小道地經 (T608 ascribed to Zhi Yao) in his list of dubious Chan-related anonymous scriptures, commenting that it is groundlessly ascribed to Zhi Yao. Sakaino explains why the ascription to Zhi Yao should be incorrect elsewhere in the same book (as summarised in other CBC@ entries), but he does not explain why this anonymous text is “dubious.” T0608; 道地經中要語章; 小道地經

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

 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. Wang Fu 王浮 T2139; 老子化胡經

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 important texts such as the Srimaladevisimhanada-sutra 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經 T353, the Lankavatara-sutra 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670 and the Samyuktagama 雜阿含經 T99 were in fact translated by Baoyun. Baoyun, 寶雲 T0099; 雜阿含經 T0353; 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經 T0670; 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經

Sakaino suggests that it was actually Baoyun who translated the Guanshiyin pusa shou ji jing 觀世音菩薩授記經 (T371 ascribed to *Dharmodgata 曇無竭, i.e., Fayong 法勇, Baoyun’s disciple). Sakaino conjectures that this Fayong is the same person Fayong who was a student of Guṇabhadra, as the former is recorded to have been in Jiankang 建康 during the last years of Guṇabhadra’s life. Sakaino claims that since Fayong had travelled to India and supposedly learnt Sanskrit 梵語, he probably worked as the oral translator/interpreter for Guṇabhadra’s translation works after Baoyun died in 449 (元嘉 26). Sakaino quotes GSZ and CSZJJ biographies which state that Fayong left China for India in a group of 25, only five of whom survived to return more than twenty years later.

Edit

644-647

 Sakaino suggests that it was actually Baoyun who translated the Guanshiyin pusa shou ji jing 觀世音菩薩授記經 (T371 ascribed to *Dharmodgata 曇無竭, i.e., Fayong 法勇, Baoyun’s disciple). Sakaino conjectures that this Fayong is the same person Fayong who was a student of Gunabhadra, as the former is recorded to have been in Jiankang 建康 during the last years of Gunabhadra’s life. Sakaino claims that since Fayong had travelled to India and supposedly learnt Sanskrit 梵語, he probably worked as the oral translator/interpreter for Gunabhadra’s translation works after Baoyun died in 449 (元嘉 26). Sakaino quotes GSZ and CSZJJ biographies which state that Fayong left China for India in a group of 25, only five of whom survived to return more than twenty years later. Baoyun, 寶雲 T0371; 觀世音菩薩授記經

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 states that the Dirghagama 長阿含經 T1 , the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Si fen lu) 四分律 T1428, and the Si fen jie ben 四分戒本 T1429 are ascribed to Buddhayasas. 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 Buddhayasas’s translations. Daohan 道含 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0001; 長阿含經 T1428; 四分律; 曇無德律 T1429; 四分律比丘戒本

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

 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. Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 T2058; 付法藏因緣傳

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

 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. Kang Mengxiang, 康孟詳 Zhu Dali, 竺大力 T0184; 修行本起經

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 Sukhavativyuha 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 *Lokaksema should be re-ascribed to Dharmaraksa ; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokaksema; 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 Dharmaraksa, which has long been regarded as lost, is actually T361. T361 is Dharmaraksa’s revision of the Da Amituo jing 大阿彌陀經, earlier translated by *Lokaksema. 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 Dharmaraksa brought to China. Sakaino claims that this much is clear from textual analysis. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0361; 佛說無量清淨平等覺經

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 states that in all, twelve putative translations of the Sukhavativyuha 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 *Lokaksema should be re-ascribed to Dharmaraksa ; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokaksema; and the 無量壽經 T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 should be re-ascribed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0362; 佛說阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經

According to Sakaino, the *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā 十住論 [十住毘婆沙論 T1521] should not be ascribed to Kumārajīva, if we adopt Zhisheng’s standard (that is to say, assuming that only texts that Kumārajīva plays a major role in translating should be ascribed to him), because the “translation” of the text was performed by Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舎, and Kumārajīva only helped him.

Edit

348

 According to Sakaino, the *Dasabhumika-vibhasa 十住論 [十住毘婆沙論 T1521] should not be ascribed to Kumarajiva, if we adopt Zhisheng’s standard (that is to say, assuming that only texts that Kumarajiva plays a major role in translating should be ascribed to him), because the “translation” of the text was performed by Buddhayasas 佛陀耶舎, and Kumarajiva only helped him. Buddhayasas, 佛陀耶舍 T1521; 十住毘婆沙論

Sakaino's discussion of the Ahan kou jie shi'er yinyuan jing 阿含口解十二因緣經 T1508 (p. 65) is somewhat unclear, but he seems to maintain the following: Catalogues such as LDSBJ and KYL are incorrect in rejecting the ascription of 阿含口解 to An Shigao and ascribing it to An Xuan 安玄 instead. The status of the ascription to An Shigao remains undetermined, strictly speaking, as Sengyou records that according to Dao’an, the 阿含口解 is one of the four scriptures that “seem like” An Shigao’s works 似世高撰也.

Elsewhere (p. 752), Sakaino states that T1508 is listed in CSZJJ with the title Ahan kou jie 阿含口解. The ascription to An Xuan was first given by LDSBJ, and Sakaino claims that DTNDL 大唐内典錄 is probably correct rejecting the ascription to An Xuan, on the basis of an alternate title stating that it was an oral commentary or exposition delivered by An: 一云安侯口解經或云安玄譯據題不爾 (2149 [LV] 223b10-11).

Edit

65, 90-92, 752

 Sakaino's discussion of the Ahan kou jie shi'er yinyuan jing 阿含口解十二因緣經 T1508 (p. 65) is somewhat unclear, but he seems to maintain the following: Catalogues such as LDSBJ and KYL are incorrect in rejecting the ascription of 阿含口解 to An Shigao and ascribing it to An Xuan 安玄 instead. The status of the ascription to An Shigao remains undetermined, strictly speaking, as Sengyou records that according to Dao’an, the 阿含口解 is one of the four scriptures that “seem like” An Shigao’s works 似世高撰也. Elsewhere (p. 752), Sakaino states that T1508 is listed in CSZJJ with the title Ahan kou jie 阿含口解. The ascription to An Xuan was first given by LDSBJ, and Sakaino claims that DTNDL 大唐内典錄 is probably correct rejecting the ascription to An Xuan, on the basis of an alternate title stating that it was an oral commentary or exposition delivered by An: 一云安侯口解經或云安玄譯據題不爾 (2149 [LV] 223b10-11). An Shigao, 安世高 T1508; 阿含口解十二因緣經

Sakaino argues that the 惠印經 [慧印三昧經 T632 ascribed to Zhi Qian ---MR] is the work of either*Lokakṣema or Dharmarakṣa, but more likely *Lokakṣema; in any case, Sakaino holds that it is definitely not the work of Zhi Qian. Sakaino bases his claim on the terminology used in the text (e.g., 陀隣尼, 漚惒拘舍羅, and 眞陀羅). The text is more likely to be by *Lokakṣema, because the word 舎利弗羅 appears only in this text and the 大愛道般泥洹經 Da’aidao bannihuan jing T144.

Edit

123-124

 Sakaino argues that the 惠印經 [慧印三昧經 T632 ascribed to Zhi Qian ---MR] is the work of either*Lokaksema or Dharmaraksa, but more likely *Lokaksema; in any case, Sakaino holds that it is definitely not the work of Zhi Qian. Sakaino bases his claim on the terminology used in the text (e.g., 陀隣尼, 漚惒拘舍羅, and 眞陀羅). The text is more likely to be by *Lokaksema, because the word 舎利弗羅 appears only in this text and the 大愛道般泥洹經 Da’aidao bannihuan jing T144. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0632; 佛說慧印三昧經; Tathagatajnanamudrasamadhi

Sakaino maintains that the Weimi chi jing 微密持經 (無量門微密持經 T1011) is not the work of Zhi Qian, and should be reclassified as anonymous, based upon its terminology. Examples he presents include 涅槃, 陀羅尼, 夜叉, 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提, and 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師為佛眾祐 for the ten epithets of the Buddha.

[Something is wrong with Sakaino's analysis: None of the terms 涅槃, 陀羅尼, 夜叉, and 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 appears in T1011. Sakaino's only valid piece of evidence is 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師為佛眾祐 --- MR.]

Edit

120-121

 Sakaino maintains that the Weimi chi jing 微密持經 (無量門微密持經 T1011) is not the work of Zhi Qian, and should be reclassified as anonymous, based upon its terminology. Examples he presents include 涅槃, 陀羅尼, 夜叉, 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提, and 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師為佛眾祐 for the ten epithets of the Buddha. [Something is wrong with Sakaino's analysis: None of the terms 涅槃, 陀羅尼, 夜叉, and 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 appears in T1011. Sakaino's only valid piece of evidence is 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師為佛眾祐 --- MR.] Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1011; 佛說無量門微密持經

Sakaino lists 29 extant “Hīnayāna” titles ascribed to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ (list on 129-130) [the number seems to be 28, strictly speaking, since, as Sakaino himself states, the last one in his list, the Zhuanji bai yuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200, was listed initially in DTNDL, followed by KYL --- AI]. He judges that there is hardly any doubt that the ten titles ascribed to Zhi Qian already in CSZJJ are truly his work. However, regarding the other 19 [18?] titles, Sakaino points out that all but four [three?] of them were already listed by Dao’an or Sengyou, but under other attributions or associated with other information about provenance (listed below):

In Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 安公古異經錄 of CSZJJ:

不自守意經 T107
弊魔試目連經 T67

In Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄:

七知經 T27
龍王兄弟經 T597

In Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄 [By this Sakaino seems to mean 新集安公失譯經錄 --- AI]:

諸法本經 T59
五母子經 T555
孫陀耶致經 [孫多耶致經 T582]
須摩提女經 T128
黑氏梵志經 T583
未生怨經 [未生寃經 T507]
[長者音悦經 T531]

In Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 [By this Sakaino seems to mean 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 --- AI]:

戒消伏災經 [戒消災經 T1477]
弗迦沙王經 [蓱沙王五願經 T511]
猘狗經 T214
佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20
梵網六十二見經 T21

According to Sakaino, therefore, only the following titles among the 19 titles might actually be Zhi Qian’s work:

佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20:
七知經 T27
未生怨經 [未生寃經 T507]
蓱沙王五願經 T511
孫陀耶致經 [孫多耶致經 T582].

Edit

129-135

 Sakaino lists 29 extant “Hinayana” titles ascribed to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ (list on 129-130) [the number seems to be 28, strictly speaking, since, as Sakaino himself states, the last one in his list, the Zhuanji bai yuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200, was listed initially in DTNDL, followed by KYL --- AI]. He judges that there is hardly any doubt that the ten titles ascribed to Zhi Qian already in CSZJJ are truly his work. However, regarding the other 19 [18?] titles, Sakaino points out that all but four [three?] of them were already listed by Dao’an or Sengyou, but under other attributions or associated with other information about provenance (listed below): In Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 安公古異經錄 of CSZJJ: 不自守意經 T107 弊魔試目連經 T67 In Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄: 七知經 T27 龍王兄弟經 T597 In Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄 [By this Sakaino seems to mean 新集安公失譯經錄 --- AI]: 諸法本經 T59 五母子經 T555 孫陀耶致經 [孫多耶致經 T582] 須摩提女經 T128 黑氏梵志經 T583 未生怨經 [未生寃經 T507] [長者音悦經 T531] In Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 [By this Sakaino seems to mean 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 --- AI]: 戒消伏災經 [戒消災經 T1477] 弗迦沙王經 [蓱沙王五願經 T511] 猘狗經 T214 佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20 梵網六十二見經 T21 According to Sakaino, therefore, only the following titles among the 19 titles might actually be Zhi Qian’s work: 佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20: 七知經 T27 未生怨經 [未生寃經 T507] 蓱沙王五願經 T511 孫陀耶致經 [孫多耶致經 T582]. T0020; 阿拔經; Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿跋經; 阿拔摩納經; Ambattha-sutra; 佛開解梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿颰經 T0027; 七智經; 七知經 T0507; 佛說未生冤經; 未生怨經 T0511; 佛說蓱沙王五願經; 弗迦沙王經; 萍沙王五願經 T0582; 佛說孫多耶致經; *Sundarika-sutra; 梵志孫陀耶致經

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

Edit

662-664

 Fajing ascribes T341 to Bodhiruci [written as 留支]. LDSBJ ascribes it to *Prajnaruci. T0341; 聖善住意天子所問經

According to Sakaino, KYL follows LDSBJ regarding the works of *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多. Zhisheng states that the Wu zi bao qie jing 無字寶篋經 (T828 ascribed to Bodhiruci) was translated separately by *Buddhaśānta and again by Bodhiruci, commenting that the two versions are the translations of the same text 同本, while but *Buddhaśānta’s version was lost. Sakaino points out that probably the report of a *Buddhaśānta version is a result of confusion about between *Buddhaśānta and Bodhiruci, since it is highly unlikely that the same text was translated separately by two different translators at the same time.

Edit

668-670

 According to Sakaino, KYL follows LDSBJ regarding the works of *Buddhasanta 佛陀扇多. Zhisheng states that the Wu zi bao qie jing 無字寶篋經 (T828 ascribed to Bodhiruci) was translated separately by *Buddhasanta and again by Bodhiruci, commenting that the two versions are the translations of the same text 同本, while but *Buddhasanta’s version was lost. Sakaino points out that probably the report of a *Buddhasanta version is a result of confusion about between *Buddhasanta and Bodhiruci, since it is highly unlikely that the same text was translated separately by two different translators at the same time. T0828; 無字寶篋經

Sakaino states that Fajing’s catalogue 法經錄 contains a number of entries evincing confusion between Bodhiruci 菩提流支 and *Prajnāruci 般若流支. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ discussing this confusion (T2034 [XLIX], 87a11-15). Sakaino adds that Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 was also included in this confusion, due to the element流支 –ruci, shared between all the names. For example, the Jinse wang jing 金色王經 (T162 ascribed to *Prajnāruci) is listed in Fajing with a note saying “translated by Ruci” 留支譯, apparently mistaking it as Bodhiruci’s work. In LDSBJ, this Jinse wang jing is not listed as Bodhiruci’s work, but listed among both the works of *Prajnāruci and those of Dharmaruci, with a note to that ascribed to Dharmaruci stating 法上錄云菩提流支後更重勘. KYL records the same. Sakaino claims that those records indicate that the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 listed a Jinse wang jing ascribed to Bodhiruci, stating 菩提流支再勘譯出, but Fei ascribed the title to the two other “Rucis” 流支, even while he copied over Fashang’s note.

Sakaino lists the following five titles that are ascribed to Bodhiruci in Fajing but not in LDSBJ (Sakaino states that the ascriptions in Fajing are written simply 流支, but Sakaino tentatively assumes that it means Bodhiruci): 如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切佛境界經 [如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切諸佛境界經 T357 ascribed to *Dharmaruci], 如來師子吼經 co-translated with *Buddhaśānta (T835 ascribed to *Buddhaśānta), 聖善住意天子所問經 (T341, presently ascribed to *Vimokṣa Prajñārṣi and *Prajñāruci), 信力入印法門經 (T305 ascribed to Dharmaruci), and T162 (discussed above).

In LDSBJ, ascriptions are given to the same five titles as follows: the T357, the T305 and T162 are ascribed to Dharmaruci; T835 is ascribed to *Buddhaśānta; and T341 is ascribed to *Prajnāruci.

Edit

663-664

 Sakaino states that Fajing’s catalogue 法經錄 contains a number of entries evincing confusion between Bodhiruci 菩提流支 and *Prajnaruci 般若流支. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ discussing this confusion (T2034 [XLIX], 87a11-15). Sakaino adds that Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 was also included in this confusion, due to the element流支 –ruci, shared between all the names. For example, the Jinse wang jing 金色王經 (T162 ascribed to *Prajnaruci) is listed in Fajing with a note saying “translated by Ruci” 留支譯, apparently mistaking it as Bodhiruci’s work. In LDSBJ, this Jinse wang jing is not listed as Bodhiruci’s work, but listed among both the works of *Prajnaruci and those of Dharmaruci, with a note to that ascribed to Dharmaruci stating 法上錄云菩提流支後更重勘. KYL records the same. Sakaino claims that those records indicate that the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 listed a Jinse wang jing ascribed to Bodhiruci, stating 菩提流支再勘譯出, but Fei ascribed the title to the two other “Rucis” 流支, even while he copied over Fashang’s note. Sakaino lists the following five titles that are ascribed to Bodhiruci in Fajing but not in LDSBJ (Sakaino states that the ascriptions in Fajing are written simply 流支, but Sakaino tentatively assumes that it means Bodhiruci): 如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切佛境界經 [如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切諸佛境界經 T357 ascribed to *Dharmaruci], 如來師子吼經 co-translated with *Buddhasanta (T835 ascribed to *Buddhasanta), 聖善住意天子所問經 (T341, presently ascribed to *Vimoksa Prajnarsi and *Prajnaruci), 信力入印法門經 (T305 ascribed to Dharmaruci), and T162 (discussed above). In LDSBJ, ascriptions are given to the same five titles as follows: the T357, the T305 and T162 are ascribed to Dharmaruci; T835 is ascribed to *Buddhasanta; and T341 is ascribed to *Prajnaruci. Fashang's catalogue 法上錄; Qi shi zhongjing mulu 齊世眾經目錄; Gao Qi zhongjing mulu 高齊眾經目錄 T0162; 金色王經 T0305; 信力入印法門經 T0341; 聖善住意天子所問經 T0357; 如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切佛境界經 T0835; 如來師子吼經 T2034; 歷代三寶紀 T2146; 眾經目錄

Sakaino states that KYL corrected mistakes regarding the translation works of the "three Rucis" 流支 as much as possible, using the prefaces of the scriptures as the main source. For example, Zhisheng reascribed the Vikurvaṇarājaparipṛcchā 奮迅王問 T421, the Niyatāniyata[gati]mudrāvatāra-sūtra 不必定入印 T645, the Yiqie fa gaowang 一切法髙王 (apparently not extant), the Paramārthadharmavijaya-sūtra 第一義法勝 T833, and the Shun zhong lun 順中論 T1565 (all previously ascribed to Bodhiruci) to *Gautama Prajnāruci 瞿曇般若流支 [Zhisheng should therefore be the ultimate source of these ascriptions, which are still borne by all these texts in T --- MR]. Sakaino states that these re-ascriptions were correct. Zhisheng also reascribed the following titles to *Vimokṣaprajñārṣi 毘目智仙: the Baoji pusa lun 寶髻菩薩論 [cf. 寶髻經四法憂波提舍 T1526], the San juzu jing lun 三具足經論 [三具足經憂波提舍 T1534], the Zhuan falun jing lun 轉法輪經論 [轉法輪經憂波提舍 T1533] (all ascribed to Bodhiruci in LDSBJ), and the Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa 業成就論 T1608 and the Vigrahavyāvartaṇī 廻[迴]諍論 T1631 (both ascribed to *Prajnāruci 般若流支 in LDSBJ). [Once again, then, Zhisheng is the source of the ascriptions that all these texts bear in T.] Sakaino states that *Vimokṣaprajñārṣi first appears in KYL, and that his proximity to *Prajnāruci might have been a cause for the confusion in records about the two figures, quoting the following comment from Zhisheng: 與瞿曇流支同遊魏境。而瞿曇流支尊事為師 (T2154 [LV] 543b15-16).

Edit

668

 Sakaino states that KYL corrected mistakes regarding the translation works of the "three Rucis" 流支 as much as possible, using the prefaces of the scriptures as the main source. For example, Zhisheng reascribed the Vikurvanarajapariprccha 奮迅王問 T421, the Niyataniyata[gati]mudravatara-sutra 不必定入印 T645, the Yiqie fa gaowang 一切法髙王 (apparently not extant), the Paramarthadharmavijaya-sutra 第一義法勝 T833, and the Shun zhong lun 順中論 T1565 (all previously ascribed to Bodhiruci) to *Gautama Prajnaruci 瞿曇般若流支 [Zhisheng should therefore be the ultimate source of these ascriptions, which are still borne by all these texts in T --- MR]. Sakaino states that these re-ascriptions were correct. Zhisheng also reascribed the following titles to *Vimoksaprajnarsi 毘目智仙: the Baoji pusa lun 寶髻菩薩論 [cf. 寶髻經四法憂波提舍 T1526], the San juzu jing lun 三具足經論 [三具足經憂波提舍 T1534], the Zhuan falun jing lun 轉法輪經論 [轉法輪經憂波提舍 T1533] (all ascribed to Bodhiruci in LDSBJ), and the Karmasiddhiprakarana 業成就論 T1608 and the Vigrahavyavartani 廻[迴]諍論 T1631 (both ascribed to *Prajnaruci 般若流支 in LDSBJ). [Once again, then, Zhisheng is the source of the ascriptions that all these texts bear in T.] Sakaino states that *Vimoksaprajnarsi first appears in KYL, and that his proximity to *Prajnaruci might have been a cause for the confusion in records about the two figures, quoting the following comment from Zhisheng: 與瞿曇流支同遊魏境。而瞿曇流支尊事為師 (T2154 [LV] 543b15-16). T0421; 奮迅王問經 T0645; 不必定入定入印經 T0833; 第一義法勝經 T1526; 寶髻經四法憂波提舍 T1533; 轉法輪經憂波提舍 T1534; 三具足經憂波提舍 T1565; 順中論 T1608; 業成就論 T1631; 迴諍論

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

 Sakaino states that Ratnamati 勒那摩提, Bodhiruci 菩提流支, and *Buddhasanta 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 Buddhasanta. However, Sakaino claims that Buddhasanta 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 Dasabhumika 十地[經]論 T1522, however, states that Ratnamati and Bodhiruci were the translators 譯出, and Buddhasanta was the oral translator/interpreter 傳語. From this, Sakaino infers that Buddhasanta was the person who worked as the oral translator/interpreter 傳語 for the other two in other cases as well. Sakaino infers that Buddhasanta 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. Buddhasanta, 佛陀扇多 T0179; 銀色女經 T0236; 金剛般若波羅蜜經 T0440; 佛說佛名經 T0465; 伽耶山頂經 T0470; 佛說文殊師利巡行經 T0573; 差摩婆帝授記經 T0575; 佛說大方等修多羅王經 T0576; 佛說轉有經 T0587; 勝思惟梵天所問經 T0668; 佛說不增不減經 T0671; 入楞伽經 T0675; 深密解脫經 T0761; 佛說法集經 T0828; 無字寶篋經 T0831; 謗佛經 T0832; 佛語經 T0835; 如來師子吼經 T1028A; 佛說護諸童子陀羅尼經 T1344; 金剛上味陀羅尼經 T1496; 佛說正恭敬經 T1511; 金剛般若波羅蜜經論 T1512; 金剛仙論 T1520; 妙法蓮華經論優波提舍 T1522; 十地經論 T1523; 大寶積經論 T1524; 無量壽經優波提舍 T1525; 彌勒菩薩所問經論 T1531; 文殊師利菩薩問菩提經論 T1532; 勝思惟梵天所問經論 T1572; 百字論 T1592; 攝大乘論 T1611; 究竟一乘寶性論 T1639; 提婆菩薩破楞伽經中外道小乘四宗論 T1640; 提婆菩薩釋楞伽經中外道小乘涅槃論 T1651; 十二因緣論 X0205; 佛說阿彌陀佛根本祕密神咒經

According to Sakaino, the Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to *Lokakṣema is actually the same text as the one ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, and LDSBJ and other scriptural catalogues are incorrect in recording as if *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo separately produced two different translations. It is true, however, that there existed two versions of the Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra, one incomplete (1 juan, cf. T417) and one complete (2 juan, cf. T418, which however is today in 3 juan?), but Sakaino explains that probably *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo translated those two versions together, not separately. The extant three-juan version (T418) is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the two-juan version by *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino states that he will discuss these texts further in a later chapter [in the same book], without specifying where.

Edit

107-108

 According to Sakaino, the Pratyupannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to *Lokaksema is actually the same text as the one ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, and LDSBJ and other scriptural catalogues are incorrect in recording as if *Lokaksema and Zhu Shuofo separately produced two different translations. It is true, however, that there existed two versions of the Pratyupannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra, one incomplete (1 juan, cf. T417) and one complete (2 juan, cf. T418, which however is today in 3 juan?), but Sakaino explains that probably *Lokaksema and Zhu Shuofo translated those two versions together, not separately. The extant three-juan version (T418) is Dharmaraksa’s revision of the two-juan version by *Lokaksema and Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino states that he will discuss these texts further in a later chapter [in the same book], without specifying where. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛/Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 T0417; Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra; 般舟三昧經 T0418; 般舟三昧經

Sakaino states that the well-known recapitulatory verses 重頌偈 occurring at the end of the Pumen chapter 普門品 of Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sūtra T262 (apparently referring to T262 (IX) 57c7-58b2) were not in Kumārajīva’s translation but added later. The verses in question are actually from *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta’s 闍那崛多 translation. Sakaino points out that the content of this verse does not fit very well with the preceding prose, and it is not included in the translation by Dharmarakṣa 正法華 T263. Hence there is room for doubt if this verse was truly a recapitulatory verses for this chapter. However, the extant Sanskrit text of the Lotus has these verses, so it was not added after the text was brought to China.

Edit

390-391

 Sakaino states that the well-known recapitulatory verses 重頌偈 occurring at the end of the Pumen chapter 普門品 of Kumarajiva’s Lotus Sutra T262 (apparently referring to T262 (IX) 57c7-58b2) were not in Kumarajiva’s translation but added later. The verses in question are actually from *Jnanagupta/Jinagupta’s 闍那崛多 translation. Sakaino points out that the content of this verse does not fit very well with the preceding prose, and it is not included in the translation by Dharmaraksa 正法華 T263. Hence there is room for doubt if this verse was truly a recapitulatory verses for this chapter. However, the extant Sanskrit text of the Lotus has these verses, so it was not added after the text was brought to China. T0262; 妙法蓮華經

Sakaino claims that that there is not a single reliable ascription to Huijian 惠簡/慧簡, because all were the fabrications of Fei Changfang. Fei took 25 titles from CSZJJ (24 from 新集失譯錄, viz., 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and one from 新集疑經偽撰雜錄) and ascribed them to Huijian). This entry is associated with all texts ascribed to Huijian in the present T.

Edit

546-548

 Sakaino claims that that there is not a single reliable ascription to Huijian 惠簡/慧簡, because all were the fabrications of Fei Changfang. Fei took 25 titles from CSZJJ (24 from 新集失譯錄, viz., 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and one from 新集疑經偽撰雜錄) and ascribed them to Huijian). This entry is associated with all texts ascribed to Huijian in the present T. T0043; Yan wang wu tianshizhe jing 閻王五天使者經; 閻羅王五天使者經; Yan wang tianshizhe jing 鹽王天使者經; Yan wang tianshizhe jing 閻王天使者經 T0060; 瞿曇彌記果經 T0134; 佛說長者子六過出家經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0145; 佛母般泥洹經 T0797; 佛說貧窮老公經; Pin lao jing 貧老經 T0827; 佛說懈怠耕者經; Xiedai geng'er jing 懈怠耕兒經 T1689; 請賓頭盧法

Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 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 or Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 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). Juqu Jingsheng is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng to which Sakaino's criticism here applies.

Most of the titles newly ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng by Fei were actually taken either from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 (21 titles) or from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 (10 titles). Sakaino claims that it is clear that Fei just took the entry baselessly from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts, since too many titles were newly given the ascription by Fei, and, furthermore, Fei imports most of the titles in a particular section 段 in the catalogue into his list of works that he ascribes to Juqu Jingsheng.

To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists all the 35 titles that Fei listed as Juqu Jingsheng’s work, indicating which ones were taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts and which ones were from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (868-869). Sakaino asserts that 4 titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in CSZJJ (3 extant, 1 lost) are the only reliable record of Juqu Jingsheng’s work (871).

Sakaino adds that in the case of Juqu Jingsheng, too, we observe a common practice in Fei´s work, which is to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, at the same time as he so reassigns anonymous scriptures taken from Sengyou’s or Dao’an’s lists. For example, the 摩達王經 in Dao’an’s catalogue becomes the 摩達經 in LDSBJ, and the Shi jing 逝經 with the alternate title 菩薩逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue (cf. T528) becomes the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經, replacing 逝 with 誓.

Edit

866-871

 Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 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 or Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 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). Juqu Jingsheng is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Most of the titles newly ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng by Fei were actually taken either from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 (21 titles) or from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 (10 titles). Sakaino claims that it is clear that Fei just took the entry baselessly from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts, since too many titles were newly given the ascription by Fei, and, furthermore, Fei imports most of the titles in a particular section 段 in the catalogue into his list of works that he ascribes to Juqu Jingsheng. To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists all the 35 titles that Fei listed as Juqu Jingsheng’s work, indicating which ones were taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts and which ones were from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (868-869). Sakaino asserts that 4 titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in CSZJJ (3 extant, 1 lost) are the only reliable record of Juqu Jingsheng’s work (871). Sakaino adds that in the case of Juqu Jingsheng, too, we observe a common practice in Fei s work, which is to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, at the same time as he so reassigns anonymous scriptures taken from Sengyou’s or Dao’an’s lists. For example, the 摩達王經 in Dao’an’s catalogue becomes the 摩達經 in LDSBJ, and the Shi jing 逝經 with the alternate title 菩薩逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue (cf. T528) becomes the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經, replacing 逝 with 誓. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0089; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 八關齋經 T0512; 佛說淨飯王般涅槃經 T0514; 佛說諫王經; 大小諫王經 T0517; 末羅王經; 佛說末羅王經 T0519; Moda wang jing 摩達王經; 佛說摩達國王經 T0541; 佛說佛大僧大經; Seng da jing 僧大經 T0542; 佛說耶祇經; Yeqi jing 耶祇經 T0620; 治禪病祕要法 T0751; 佛說五無反復經; Wu wufanfu jing 五無返復經, Wuyou fanfu jing 五有返復經 T0798; 佛說進學經; Quanjin xue dao jing 勸進學道經 T0826; 弟子死復生經; Shengsi wang/yi gengsheng jing 死亡[已]更生經 T1469; 佛說迦葉禁戒經; 眞僞沙門經, 摩訶比丘經, 眞僞經, ; 迦葉戒經; Jiashe jie jing 迦葉戒經 T1481; 佛說五恐怖世經; 五恐怖經

Sakaino states that CSZJJ and KYL ascribe the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra in six juan (T376) to Faxian and Buddhabhadra 覺堅, and that LSDBJ (citing 舊錄), and KYL following it, mention a view that the translation of T376 was done by Buddhabhadra with Baoyun 寶雲 serving as amanuensis 筆受. Sakaino then quotes a passage in the colophon to the Nihuan jing in six fascicles 六巻泥洹記 that records Buddhabhadra 覺堅 as the person who handled the text 執本 and Baoyun as the oral translator/interpreter 傳語. [Sakaino does not say which of those ascriptions are likely to be correct --- AI.] According to Sakaino, the ascription of T376 to Faxian was given out of respect to him for bringing the original text to China, while in fact he did not play actual roles such as the text holder or oral translator/interpreter in the translation process.

Edit

535-536

 Sakaino states that CSZJJ and KYL ascribe the Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra in six juan (T376) to Faxian and Buddhabhadra 覺堅, and that LSDBJ (citing 舊錄), and KYL following it, mention a view that the translation of T376 was done by Buddhabhadra with Baoyun 寶雲 serving as amanuensis 筆受. Sakaino then quotes a passage in the colophon to the Nihuan jing in six fascicles 六巻泥洹記 that records Buddhabhadra 覺堅 as the person who handled the text 執本 and Baoyun as the oral translator/interpreter 傳語. [Sakaino does not say which of those ascriptions are likely to be correct --- AI.] According to Sakaino, the ascription of T376 to Faxian was given out of respect to him for bringing the original text to China, while in fact he did not play actual roles such as the text holder or oral translator/interpreter in the translation process. T0376; 佛說大般泥洹經

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 argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Gunabhadra 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). Gunabhadra is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Gunabhadra to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. According to Sakaino, Fei lists 78 titles as Gunabhadra’s work (including the 13 already ascribed to Gunabhadra 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 Gunabhadra in CSZJJ are the only reliable record of Gunabhadra’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 Gunabhadra 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 Mahayana 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 Gunabhadra (Sakaino implies clearly that the ascriptions of them to Gunabhadra are baseless). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0079; 鸚鵡經; Doutiao jing 兜調經 T0090; 鞞摩肅經 T0127; 佛說四人出現世間經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0138; 佛說十一想思念如來經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0141; 佛說阿遬達經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 T0177; 大意經 T0497; 佛說摩訶迦葉度貧母經 T0536; Shenri'er jing 申日兒經; Shenridou ben jing 申日兜本經; Shenridou jing 申日兜經; 申日兒本經; Shenyuedou ben jing 申曰兜本經 T0540; 佛說樹提伽經 T0560; 佛說老母女六英經 T0753; 十二品生死經; Shi'er si jing, 十二死經 T0771; 四品學法經 T0783; 佛說十二頭陀經 T1013; Anantamukhanirhara-dharani; 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經; Muqu jing 目佉經

Citing the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄, LDSBJ records that the text of T1522 (after the work of amanuensis 筆受 by emperor Xuanwu 宣武) was finalized 訖了 by Sengbian 僧辯 for Bodhiruci’s version, while Senglang 僧朗, Huiyi 覺意, and Cui Guang 崔光 played the amanuensis role for Ratnamati. Sakaino states that probably all of those four figures worked as amanuenses 筆受 in the translation of T1522.

Edit

680

 Citing the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄, LDSBJ records that the text of T1522 (after the work of amanuensis 筆受 by emperor Xuanwu 宣武) was finalized 訖了 by Sengbian 僧辯 for Bodhiruci’s version, while Senglang 僧朗, Huiyi 覺意, and Cui Guang 崔光 played the amanuensis role for Ratnamati. Sakaino states that probably all of those four figures worked as amanuenses 筆受 in the translation of T1522. Cui Guang 崔光 Huiyi 覺意 Senglang 僧朗 Xuanwu 宣武 T1522; 十地經論

Sakaino discusses the length of Faxian’s journey. Sakaino states that probably the journey took fifteen years, arriving back in China in Yixi 義熙 10 (414), and that Faxian wrote a record of his journey in Yixi 12 (416), after spending the summer rains retreat in Jiankang 建康 (modern Nanjing). Faxian first wrote a short account of his journey and then wrote a more detailed one. Sakaino maintains that the extant T2085 is the detailed version. Sakaino quotes passages from T2085 in making those claims, which include the following:

故將竹帛疏所經歷。欲令賢者同其聞見。是歲甲寅晉義熙十二年矣 (T2085 [LI] 866b22-23).
夏安居末迎法顯。道人既至留共冬齋。因講集之餘重問遊歷。其人恭順言輒依實。由是先所略者勸令詳載。顯復具敘始末。 (T2085 [LI] 866b24-27).

Edit

525-526

 Sakaino discusses the length of Faxian’s journey. Sakaino states that probably the journey took fifteen years, arriving back in China in Yixi 義熙 10 (414), and that Faxian wrote a record of his journey in Yixi 12 (416), after spending the summer rains retreat in Jiankang 建康 (modern Nanjing). Faxian first wrote a short account of his journey and then wrote a more detailed one. Sakaino maintains that the extant T2085 is the detailed version. Sakaino quotes passages from T2085 in making those claims, which include the following: 故將竹帛疏所經歷。欲令賢者同其聞見。是歲甲寅晉義熙十二年矣 (T2085 [LI] 866b22-23). 夏安居末迎法顯。道人既至留共冬齋。因講集之餘重問遊歷。其人恭順言輒依實。由是先所略者勸令詳載。顯復具敘始末。 (T2085 [LI] 866b24-27). T2085; 高僧法顯傳

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 quotes a passage from KYL that states that the two-juan *Nirvana-sutra 泥洹經 [般泥洹經 T6?, anon. E. Jin], newly rediscovered in Zhisheng s time, should be the *Nirvana-sutra 泥洹經 in one juan ascribed to Gunabhadra, but it does not appear to be Gunabhadra’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 Gunabhadra in CSZJJ should be a result of a confusion with a work by *Lokaksema. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0006; 般泥洹經

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 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 Taisho --- 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 Taisho --- MR] are correctly ascribed to Tanwulan, as source for them is CSZJJ, based on Dao’an. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0022; 寂志果經 T0042; 鐵城泥犁經 T0058; 阿耨風經 T0086; 泥犁經; 凡人有三事愚癡不足經; Zhong ahan nili jing 中阿含泥犁經; 勤苦泥犁經 T0139; 佛說四泥犁經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0216; 大魚事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0393; Fo bannihuan shi Jiaye fu Fo jing 佛般泥洹時迦葉赴佛經; 迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T0510; 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經; Cai hua wei wang jing 採華違王經 T0743; 忠心正行經; 忠心政行經 ; Zhongxin jing 忠心經; 佛說忠心經 T1327; 佛說呪齒經; Zhou chong chi 呪虫齒; Zhou chi 呪齒 T1378; 幻師颰陀神呪經; 佛說玄師颰陀所說神呪經 T1391; 佛說檀特羅麻油述經 T1393; 佛說摩尼羅亶經

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

 A Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 首楞嚴經 in 2 juan was ascribed to Dharmaraksa. According to Sakaino, Dharmaraksa 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. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 *Suramgamasamadhi-sutra; Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 Yong fu ding jing 勇伏定經 [Suramgamasamadhi-sutra]

In his discussion on Kumārajīva, Sakaino presents a list of titles newly ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, and lists of titles that Fei took in groups for this purpose from the newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ 新集失譯錄. These new ascriptions are thus part of a very broad pattern that Sakaino traces in LDSBJ, whereby Fei gives random and baseless new ascriptions for titles treated as anonymous by Sengyou. Sakaino marks extant titles. This entry is associated with titles Sakaino marks as extant; we list all such texts in T still ascribed to Kumārajīva, the ascriptions for which thus probably derive from LDSBJ.

Chan mi yao fa jing 禪祕要法經 (written 禪祕要經 in the list) T613
Drumakinnararāja-sūtra 大樹緊那羅王所問經 (written 大樹緊那羅經 in Sakaino’s list) T625
the “Brahma Net Sūtra” 梵網經 T1484
a Da shanquanjing 大善權經 (not extant, cf. 慧上菩薩問大善權經 T345 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa)
the “Sūtra of Humane Kings” 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經 T245
Sumatidārikā-paripṛccha 須摩提菩薩經 T335
Acintyaprabhāsa-nirdeśa 不思議光菩薩所說經 T484 (written 無思議光孩童菩薩經 in the list)
Mahāmāyūrī 大金色孔雀王經 T988 (cf. the anonymous 大金色孔雀王呪經 T986 and佛説大金色孔雀王呪經 T987)
Zhuangyan puti xin jing 莊嚴菩提心經 T307
Fang niu jing 放牛經123 (written 牧牛經 in the list)
Dengzhi yinyuan jing 燈指因縁經 T703
Siwei lüe yao fa 思惟畧要法 (written 思惟要略法經 in the list) T617
Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā 大莊嚴論經 (written 大莊嚴論 in the list) T201
Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046
Longshu pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047
and Puti pusa zhuan 提婆菩薩傳 T2048

Edit

350-358

 In his discussion on Kumarajiva, Sakaino presents a list of titles newly ascribed to Kumarajiva in LDSBJ, and lists of titles that Fei took in groups for this purpose from the newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ 新集失譯錄. These new ascriptions are thus part of a very broad pattern that Sakaino traces in LDSBJ, whereby Fei gives random and baseless new ascriptions for titles treated as anonymous by Sengyou. Sakaino marks extant titles. This entry is associated with titles Sakaino marks as extant; we list all such texts in T still ascribed to Kumarajiva, the ascriptions for which thus probably derive from LDSBJ. Chan mi yao fa jing 禪祕要法經 (written 禪祕要經 in the list) T613 Drumakinnararaja-sutra 大樹緊那羅王所問經 (written 大樹緊那羅經 in Sakaino’s list) T625 the “Brahma Net Sutra” 梵網經 T1484 a Da shanquanjing 大善權經 (not extant, cf. 慧上菩薩問大善權經 T345 ascribed to Dharmaraksa) the “Sutra of Humane Kings” 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經 T245 Sumatidarika-pariprccha 須摩提菩薩經 T335 Acintyaprabhasa-nirdesa 不思議光菩薩所說經 T484 (written 無思議光孩童菩薩經 in the list) Mahamayuri 大金色孔雀王經 T988 (cf. the anonymous 大金色孔雀王呪經 T986 and佛説大金色孔雀王呪經 T987) Zhuangyan puti xin jing 莊嚴菩提心經 T307 Fang niu jing 放牛經123 (written 牧牛經 in the list) Dengzhi yinyuan jing 燈指因縁經 T703 Siwei lue yao fa 思惟畧要法 (written 思惟要略法經 in the list) T617 Kalpanamanditika 大莊嚴論經 (written 大莊嚴論 in the list) T201 Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046 Longshu pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 and Puti pusa zhuan 提婆菩薩傳 T2048 T0123; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說放牛經 T0201; 大莊嚴論經 T0245; 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 T0307; 佛說莊嚴菩提心經 T0335; *Sumatidarikapariprccha; 佛說須摩提菩薩經 T0484; 不思議光菩薩所說經 T0613; 禪祕要法經 T0617; 思惟略要法 T0625; 大樹緊那羅王所問經 T0703; 燈指因緣經 T0988; *Mahamayuri-[vidyarajni]-sutra; 孔雀王呪經 T1484; 梵網經 T2046; 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2047; 龍樹菩薩傳 T2048; 提婆菩薩傳

Sakaino states that the Sihemei jing 私訶昧經 (私呵昧經 T532) is undoubtedly Zhi Qian’s work. He bases his judgement on its translation terminology. He presents a number of examples from the text to support this claim.

Edit

116-117

 Sakaino states that the Sihemei jing 私訶昧經 (私呵昧經 T532) is undoubtedly Zhi Qian’s work. He bases his judgement on its translation terminology. He presents a number of examples from the text to support this claim. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0532; Sihemei jing, 私呵昧經; Sihemo jing, 私呵末經; Sihe sanmei jing, 私呵三昧經; Pusa daoshu jing, 菩薩道樹經; Simhamati-sutra; Daoshu sanmei jing, 道樹三昧經

Sakaino maintains that the Wu xing jing 五行經 ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ was probably taken from the title Pusa wu fa xing jing 菩薩五法行經 in Sengyou's addenda to the catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 [Sakaino also mentions the possibility that the Wu xing jing was taken from the Apitan wu fa jing 阿毘曇五法經 in CSZJJ --- which was called the Apitan wu fa xing jing 阿毘曇五法行經 by the "old catalogue" 舊錄 --- but he thinks that the Pusa wu fa xing jing is the more plausible source ---AI] . Sakaino adds that although Fei also ascribes the Pusa wu fa xing jing to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞, Fei often engages in such double-listing, so there is nothing surprising about that fact. Cf. 阿毘曇五法行經 T1557.

Edit

86

 Sakaino maintains that the Wu xing jing 五行經 ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ was probably taken from the title Pusa wu fa xing jing 菩薩五法行經 in Sengyou's addenda to the catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 [Sakaino also mentions the possibility that the Wu xing jing was taken from the Apitan wu fa jing 阿毘曇五法經 in CSZJJ --- which was called the Apitan wu fa xing jing 阿毘曇五法行經 by the "old catalogue" 舊錄 --- but he thinks that the Pusa wu fa xing jing is the more plausible source ---AI] . Sakaino adds that although Fei also ascribes the Pusa wu fa xing jing to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞, Fei often engages in such double-listing, so there is nothing surprising about that fact. Cf. 阿毘曇五法行經 T1557. T1557; 阿毘曇五法行經 Wu xing jing 五行經

Sakaino reads a sentence in the last part of the Foguo ji 佛國記 (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) as describing the situation that, after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends, 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 than to go to Chang'an. From this understanding, 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. Then Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of those texts related to Faxian. For example, the 僧祇律 (摩訶僧祇律 T1425 ascribed to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (as it is CSZJJ’s policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work), while 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 reads a sentence in the last part of the Foguo ji 佛國記 (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) as describing the situation that, after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends, 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 than to go to Chang'an. From this understanding, 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. Then Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of those texts related to Faxian. For example, the 僧祇律 (摩訶僧祇律 T1425 ascribed to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (as it is CSZJJ’s policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work), while LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra (although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯). Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 T0007; 大般涅槃經 T0376; 佛說大般泥洹經 T0745; 佛說雜藏經 T1425; 摩訶僧祇律 T1427; 摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本 T1437; 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本

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 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 *Lokaksema 支讖 judging from the terminology (according to Sakaino, the examples of terms/phrases specific to *Lokaksema 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). *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0816; Dao shenzu jing 道神足經; He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經; 佛說道神足無極變化經

Sakaino points out that catalogues often disagree as to the characteristics of the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784. The disagreements include: a) LDSBJ and other catalogues state that the scripture was translated at Baima si 白馬寺, while CSZJJ claims that it was in the Yuezhi territory 月支; and b) LDSBJ and other catalogues including DTNDL ascribe the scripture to (Zhu) Falan 法蘭 and Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰 (like the present T), but catalogues such as CSZJJ and Fajing mention Falan 法蘭 only.

Sakaino argues that T784 must have been produced after Dao’an, simply because it does not appear in his catalogue. Sakaino rejects the legend that the text was hidden for a long time (mentioned first in the preface of the text). Sakaino asserts that if the text had existed in Dao’an’s time, he definitely would have known about it, and that it is too unrealistic to suppose otherwise (36-39).

LDSBJ lists a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 ascribed to Zhi Qian as the second translation 第二出. Sakaino dismisses this entry as baseless and states that there was no such text. He suggests that that entry may reflect a situation in which the text was kept someplace in southern China, and some may have thought that it was Zhi Qian’s work because of that (38).

Sakaino points that the contents of T784 were taken from a number of other scriptures, and demonstrates how it uses them by comparing actual passages in it with those in the original scriptures. Sakaino identifies the following sources : *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 and Udānavarga 出曜經 T212 (39-45); *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 (45-48); the Rui ying ben qi jing 瑞應本起經 T185 (48-49); the Fa ju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211 (49-51); the Dharmapada 法句經 T210 (51-52); and the Chu chu jing 處處經 T730 and the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa 大智度論 [T1509] (52-56). Sakaino maintains that, although a similarity with one or two texts may be a coincidence, similarities with such a variety of texts would not occur accidentally, and hence it has to be the case that T784 was composed in China using those texts as source materials (56).

Sakaino claims that the year of production of T784 is likely to be sometime under the (Liu) Song, as that is the time between the latest material the text uses, namely T1509, and CSZJJ, which first recorded the existence of the text (56-57).

Sakaino states that the extant T784 is the version revised later by Suishou 守遂. The original version is the one in the Korean edition (57-58).

According to Sakaino, the strongest factor that may lead some to think that T784 could be a genuine translation rather than a Chinese composition is the fact that it is quoted in the biography of Xiang Kai 襄楷傳 in the Hou Han shu 後漢書 (quoted, 59). If the Xiang Kai biography is correct in this regard, T784 must have already been known in the time of Emperor Huan 桓 of E. Han 後漢. However, Sakaino claims that the biography is not a reliable source for this purpose. most importantly, because the theory of Laozi “converting the barbarians” 老子化胡 is also mentioned in the section where the text is quoted. It is highly questionable that this theory was already in circulation in the E. Han period, and the Hou Han shu was in any case written roughly three hundred years after the time of Emperor Huan (58-60).

Edit

36-61

 Sakaino points out that catalogues often disagree as to the characteristics of the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784. The disagreements include: a) LDSBJ and other catalogues state that the scripture was translated at Baima si 白馬寺, while CSZJJ claims that it was in the Yuezhi territory 月支; and b) LDSBJ and other catalogues including DTNDL ascribe the scripture to (Zhu) Falan 法蘭 and Kasyapa Matanga 迦葉摩騰 (like the present T), but catalogues such as CSZJJ and Fajing mention Falan 法蘭 only. Sakaino argues that T784 must have been produced after Dao’an, simply because it does not appear in his catalogue. Sakaino rejects the legend that the text was hidden for a long time (mentioned first in the preface of the text). Sakaino asserts that if the text had existed in Dao’an’s time, he definitely would have known about it, and that it is too unrealistic to suppose otherwise (36-39). LDSBJ lists a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 ascribed to Zhi Qian as the second translation 第二出. Sakaino dismisses this entry as baseless and states that there was no such text. He suggests that that entry may reflect a situation in which the text was kept someplace in southern China, and some may have thought that it was Zhi Qian’s work because of that (38). Sakaino points that the contents of T784 were taken from a number of other scriptures, and demonstrates how it uses them by comparing actual passages in it with those in the original scriptures. Sakaino identifies the following sources : *Ekottarikagama 増一阿含 T125 and Udanavarga 出曜經 T212 (39-45); *Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26 (45-48); the Rui ying ben qi jing 瑞應本起經 T185 (48-49); the Fa ju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211 (49-51); the Dharmapada 法句經 T210 (51-52); and the Chu chu jing 處處經 T730 and the *Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa 大智度論 [T1509] (52-56). Sakaino maintains that, although a similarity with one or two texts may be a coincidence, similarities with such a variety of texts would not occur accidentally, and hence it has to be the case that T784 was composed in China using those texts as source materials (56). Sakaino claims that the year of production of T784 is likely to be sometime under the (Liu) Song, as that is the time between the latest material the text uses, namely T1509, and CSZJJ, which first recorded the existence of the text (56-57). Sakaino states that the extant T784 is the version revised later by Suishou 守遂. The original version is the one in the Korean edition (57-58). According to Sakaino, the strongest factor that may lead some to think that T784 could be a genuine translation rather than a Chinese composition is the fact that it is quoted in the biography of Xiang Kai 襄楷傳 in the Hou Han shu 後漢書 (quoted, 59). If the Xiang Kai biography is correct in this regard, T784 must have already been known in the time of Emperor Huan 桓 of E. Han 後漢. However, Sakaino claims that the biography is not a reliable source for this purpose. most importantly, because the theory of Laozi “converting the barbarians” 老子化胡 is also mentioned in the section where the text is quoted. It is highly questionable that this theory was already in circulation in the E. Han period, and the Hou Han shu was in any case written roughly three hundred years after the time of Emperor Huan (58-60). T0784; 四十二章經

According to Sakaino, CSZJJ ascribes 31 texts still extant today to Kumārajīva. Sakaino maintains that three of them should not be regarded as Kumārajīva’s independent works. This entry is associated with the remaining 28 titles, which Sakaino does regard as authentic translations by Kumārajīva.

Edit

346-350

 According to Sakaino, CSZJJ ascribes 31 texts still extant today to Kumarajiva. Sakaino maintains that three of them should not be regarded as Kumarajiva’s independent works. This entry is associated with the remaining 28 titles, which Sakaino does regard as authentic translations by Kumarajiva. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0208; 眾經撰雜譬喻 T0223; Fangguang banre boluomi jing 方廣般若波羅蜜經; 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 T0227; 小品般若波羅蜜經 T0235; 金剛般若波羅蜜經 T0262; 妙法蓮華經 T0286; 十住經 T0366; 佛說阿彌陀經 T0389; 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 T0420; 自在王菩薩經 T0454; 佛說彌勒下生成佛經 T0456; 佛說彌勒大成佛經 T0464; 文殊師利問菩提經 T0475; 維摩詰所說經 T0482; 持世經 T0586; 思益梵天所問經 T0614; 坐禪三昧經 T0615; 菩薩訶色欲法經 T0616; 禪法要解 T0642; *Suramgamasamadhi-sutra; 佛說首楞嚴三昧經 T0650; 諸法無行經 T0653; 佛藏經 T0657; 佛說華手經; 華首經 T1436; 十誦比丘波羅提木叉戒本 T1509; 大智度論 T1564; 中論 T1568; 十二門論 T1569; 百論 T1646; 成實論