Source: Mizuno 1989

Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that EĀ ws translated twice (see separate CBC@ entry), and proposes that vestiges of the lost, second translation (which he ascribes to *Dharmanandin/Zhu Fonian) survive as a group of individual sūtras in the Taishō: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684. This entry lists those texts as a group.

Edit

Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva, and attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for the (largely) lost EĀ (arguments for the lost MĀ are treated in a separate entry).

Records attesting to a possible second EĀ translation (hereafter "EĀ-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Saṅghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Saṅghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Saṅghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text.

Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Saṅghadeva’s second translations. This judgement is based upon the contrast with another set of sūtras. Mizuno surveys the single sūtras in the MĀ section and EĀ section of the Taishō (T27-98 for MĀ and T126-151 for EĀ), and proposes that the following texts all share a uniform style that he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]:

EĀ-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684.

(Mizuno also regards the following texts as comprising "MĀ-alt", and evincing the same style: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.)

Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.]

Among the 20 EĀ-alt sūtras, 19 are recorded as anonymous in Sengyou’s own „Shiyi zajing lu” 失譯雜經錄in CSZJJ, while 1 was recorded in Dao’an’s “Angong guyijing lu” 安公古異經錄. Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taishō for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ.

Next, Mizuno also examines the excerpts in the Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed to MĀ and EĀ by Baochang. Mizuno lists 15 from EĀ. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon, specifically T119, which is one of the EĀ-alt sūtras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SĀ excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the EĀ entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first EĀ translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian].

[A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Saṅghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EĀ-alt and MĀ-alt sūtras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.]

Edit

passim

Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva, He then attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon, and discover evidence supporting the ascription of those (now fragmentary) alternate translations to "Dharmanandi"/Zhu Fonian. On this basis, Mizuno affirms the traditional ascription of EĀ T125 to Saṅghadeva.

Records attesting to a possible second EĀ translation (hereafter "EĀ-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Saṅghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Saṅghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Saṅghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text.

Mizuno's argument about the ascription of the extant EĀ T125 is based upon a contrast with another set of sūtras, which Mizuno regards as vestiges of the otherwise lost second translation. Mizuno proposes that the texts in this second group share a uniform style, which he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]. He also holds, further, that the same style characterises a further group of scattered sūtras which he thinks survived from a similarly lost MĀ. These texts are as follows (see separate entries for further details): "EĀ-alt": T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684; "MĀ-alt": T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.

On the basis of the contrast with these texts, Mizuno argues that like the extant T26, the extant EĀ T125 should be considered as Saṅghadeva’s translation, as the tradition (eventually) affirms.

[Note, however, that this argument does not cover EĀ 50.4; see separate CBC@ entry.]

Edit