Tsukinowa Kenryū 月輪 賢隆. “Hannya sanzō no hon’yaku ni taisuru higi 般若三蔵の翻經に対する批議.” IBK 4, no.2 (1954): 434-443.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
Tsukinowa states that the Dahuayan zhangzhe wen Fo naluoyan li jing 大華嚴長者問佛那羅延力經 [大花嚴長者問佛那羅延力經 T547 ascribed to Prajñā/Prajña 般若 and Liyan 利言] was translated by a team of ten scholars [apparently including Prajña; Tsikunowa does not seem to believes that this text is a proper translation, but he does not state it explicitly --- AI], in response to the request of Yuanzhao 圓照, the compiler of the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 T2156, for a translation of source material on the 84,663 kinds of Nārāyaṇa-like strength 那羅延力 of the Buddha’s body parts, as they are expounded in the fifth chapter, on the perfection of dāna 布施波羅蜜多第五品, in the Dasheng liqu liu boluomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 T261. The comparison of the strength of the Buddha’s members with the strength of Nārāyaṇa also appears in the *Mahāvibhāṣā 大毘婆沙論 (juan 30) and the Abhidharmakośa 倶舎論 (juan 27). The “Chapter on the Appearance of Illness” 病現品 in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 涅槃經 and the Sarvapuṇyasamuccayasamādhi-sūtra 集一切福德三昧經 also compare the strength of the bodhisattva with that of Nārāyaṇa. However, Tsukinowa maintains that it is unique to T547 to count this strength as 84,663 kinds. |
435-436 |
|
According to Tsukinowa, it is recorded that Trepiṭaka Prajña/Prajñā 般若三藏 translated nine titles in seventy-five juan scriptures, and also composed a Banre sanzang gu jin fanyi tu ji 般若三藏古今翻譯圖紀 in two juan. However, Tsukinowa states, probably the Gu jin fanyi tu ji 古今翻譯圖紀 was written by somebody else, and Prajña’s true translation work most likely only comprises the version of the “Heart” Sūtra 般若心經 in one juan T253, co-translated with Liyan 利言 and others. Tsukinowa believes that almost all other titles ascribed to Prajñā were his own compositions, because 1) no original texts of his works have been found; 2) no alternate translation have been found in Chinese nor in Tibetan; 3) none of those works are cited in Indian texts; and 4) the contents and style of those works of his are too peculiar to be proper translation (一二七/434). This entry lists all of the extant texts affected by Tsukinowa’s assertion, that is, all texts ascribed to Prajña except T253. See also separate CBC entries for notes on Tsukinowa’s more detailed analysis of some of the individual scriptures on this list. |
434, 443 |
|
Tsukinowa states that there are similarities between the Zao ta yanming gongde jing 造塔延命功徳經 T1026 in one juan, ascribed to Prajñā, the Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhā-dhāraṇī 無垢淨光大陀羅尼經 T1024 ascribed to *Mitraśānta 彌陀山, and the Samantamukhapraveśaraśmivimaloṣṇīṣaprabhāsarvatathāgatahṛdayasamāvilokita-dhāraṇī (佛頂放無垢光明入普門觀察一切如來心陀羅尼經) T1025 ascribed to Dānapāla 施護. For the latter two texts, the original Sanskrit 梵文 and Tibetan translations have survived. Tsukinowa states that T1026 is another example of a pattern by which Prajña uses bits of different texts in producing a scripture, while adding something new of his own composition. For instance, Prajñā uses the “Expedient Means” chapter 方便品 of the Lotus 法華經 (regarding making Buddha-stūpas from sand 聚沙造佛塔), as well as associating the method of sthāna/stūpa-building with Prasenajit 波斯匿王 [Tsukinowa is rather sarcastic here in describing Prajñā’s manner of connecting different materials, calling it “sui generis”: 而も波斯匿王へ 結びつけて泥塔作法を説くに至りては誠に天下一品]. |
441 |
|
The Dasheng bensheng xin di guan jing 大乘本生心地觀經 (T159 ) is presented in the tradition as if the text came from India, but Tsukinowa maintains that its contents shows that it is a so-called “mixed Tantric” 雜密 scripture, compiled from various other scriptures. He lists examples showing the composite character of T159 from its introduction chapter 序品: - The assembly 列衆 in the introduction 序品 includes Vimālakīrti 維摩詰 and Tuoluonizizaiwaing pusa 陀羅尼自在王菩薩; - A list of eight great jeweled stūpas 八大寶塔 include the Jeweled Stūpa of the Layman Vimalakīrti Making a Display of Illness 維摩居士現疾寶塔 and the sthāna/stūpa 塔 at Gṛdhrakūṭa 耆闍崛山 where the Buddha taught the Greater Prajñapāramitā 大般若, the Lotus 法華, and the Yisheng xin di jing 一乘心地經; - The story of “Xueshan tongzi” 雪山童子 is taken from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 涅槃經 [note: the source material referred to here appears only in portions of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra unique to *Dharmakṣema’s T374 and versions of the text derivative from it, viz., T374 and the Tibetan translation from Chinese --- MR]; and - The story of Liushui zhangzhe, the great king of doctors 流水長者大醫王, is taken from the Suvarṇabhāsottama-sūtra 金光明經 (438-439). Many other texts also serve as sources for T159, Tsukinowa adds, including the*Buddhāvataṃsaka 華嚴, the Lotus Sūtra 法華, the jātakas 本生, and the Śrīmāladevīsiṃhanāda 勝鬘. He also claims that the vocabulary of T159 indicates that it is not a genuine translation work. He conjectures that the text might have been intended to be a general summary of Buddhist scriptures. Tsukinowa states that the second chapter, on repaying debts of kindness 報恩品, expounds the four debts of kindness 四恩 in detail. This concept is probably unique to this scripture. However, Tsukinowa points out that Prajñā uses this rubric of “four types of en” 四恩 in his letter of appreciation 陳謝の上表文 that he wrote upon the completion of the translation of the “Sūtra on the Six Perfections” 六波羅密經 (Dasheng liqu liu boluomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 T261). In addition, in Prajña’s own Zhu Fo jingjie she zhenshi jing 諸佛境界攝眞實經 there is a passage listing the same four types of kindness: 依此功德。第一國王第二父母第三施主第四法界一切眾生。悉皆速證無上菩提 (T868 [XVIII] 284b18-20) [Tsukinowa adds that the Three Jewels 三寶 are missing from the list of the four types of en in the above (the dānapati 施主 is included instead) because here the benefit of 三寶 is what is directed to all of the four]. Tsukinowa lists other elements of T159 that also indicate relations between T159 and other scriptures or Buddhist doctrines, including: - The explanation of the Dharma Jewel 法寶 in T159 is based on Yogācāra doctrine; - The ten meanings of “jewel” 寶 in the category of the “Three Jewels” 三寶 is an extension of the six meanings 六義 in the Ratnagotravibhāga 寶性論. - Parts of the explanation of the saṃbhogakāya 受用身 are related to other Chinese compositions such as the “Sūtra on Humane Kings” 仁王, the “Brahma Net Sūtra” 梵網, and the Yingluo benye jing 瓔珞本業經. - Some other details such as those in受戒 are taken from the “Samantabhadra Contemplation Sūtra” 普賢觀經 T277. - According to Tsukinowa, on the basis of the fact that the third chapter, “Yanshe pin” 厭捨品, is influenced by Yogācāra ideas, Genshin 源信, in his Ichijō yōketsu 一乘要決, charged that Ryōsen 靈仙 introduced these materials into the text, because he was a scholar at Kōfuku-ji 興福寺 temple. However, Tsukinowa argues that the elements in question were directly taken from Yogācāra sources. - There are also passages that comes from the *Madhyamaka-śāstra 中論 as well, such as 不生不滅無來去，不一不異非常斷 (T159 [III] 305a28). - The passage 願以此善迴施一切，我與眾生當成佛道 (T159 [III] 311c14-15) is based on a verse in the Lotus 法華. - The “discussion of jātakas” 本生談 of De’an bhikṣu 得岸比丘 is taken from the “Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish” 賢愚經. - The “actions of the child” 嬰兒行is from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 涅槃 [one more, probably portions of the text unique to *Dharmakṣema’s T374 and derived versions, which contain an eponymous chapter --- MR]. - The “Gongdezhuangyan wang pin” 功德荘嚴王品 is based on the Kāśyapaparivarta 普明菩薩會 T310(43), Acintyabuddhaviśaya-nirdeśa 善德天子會 T310(35), etc. of the Ratnakūṭa 寶積經. - The “Guan xin pin” 觀心品 incorporates the notion that the “three realms are mind only” 三界唯心 of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華嚴, the “eight negations” 八不 of the *Madhyamaka-śāstra 中論, and the dhāraṇī 真言 from the Wu xiang cheng shen guan 五相成身觀 of the Vajraśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經. - The chapter on engendering the aspiration for ultimate awakening (bodhicitta) 發菩提心品 is related to the Kāśyapaparivarta T310(43) and the Vajraśekhara. |
438-440 |
|
Tsukinowa states that the Jialouluo ji zhutian miyan jing 迦樓羅及諸天密言經 T1278 probably first appeared in the Taishō edition of the canon, where a note (T vol. 21 331 n. 4) records that the text was taken from a copy 寫本 of Cheng’an 承安 3 (1198) in the 三密藏本 of Tōji 東寺. T1278 is ascribed to a so-called “Banreli” 般若力, but Tsukinowa argues that the li 力 in 般若力譯 was originally a question mark put next to 譯, and the name should instead be Banre = Prajna 般若. He quotes a note on the text in the Shōrai roku 請來錄 of Shūei 宗叡: 罽賓國三藏般若譯二十五紙說消除[v.l. 毒ィ]毒療病竝諸龍密言在此中 (T2174A [LV] 1109c16-17). Tsukinowa adds that word “translator” 譯 to describe the role of Prajña should naturally be questioned, because it appears at the beginning of T1278 itself (as an explanation of the name Jualuoluo 迦樓羅): 迦樓羅者。天竺方言。唐云金翅鳥。蓋非敵體之名。乃會意而譯也 (T1278 [XXI] 331a9-10). He claims that T1278 is not a translation at all, but was composed by Prajña. Tsukinowa infers that the Prajñā wrote T1278 based on the Garuḍapaṭala-parivarta/Wenshushili pusa genben dajiaowang jing Jinchiniao wang pin 文殊師利菩薩根本大教王經金翅鳥王品 T1276. Prajñā apparently valued the Garuḍa mantra 迦樓羅咒 highly, as it appears often in his works (e.g. 陀羅尼品 and淨戒品 of T261,陀羅尼品 ofT997, and T159). |
441-442 |
|
Tsukinowa states that the second chapter of the Dasheng bensheng xin di guan jing 大乘本生心地觀經 (T159), on repaying debts of kindness 報恩品, expounds the four debts of kindness 四恩 in detail. This concept is probably unique to this scripture. However, Tsukinowa points out that Prajñā uses this rubric of “four types of en” 四恩 in his letter of appreciation 陳謝の上表文 that he wrote upon the completion of the translation of the “Sūtra on the Six Perfections” 六波羅密經 (Dasheng liqu liu boluomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 T261). In addition, in the Prajña’s own Zhu Fo jingjie she zhenshi jing 諸佛境界攝眞實經 there is a passage listing the same four types of kindness: 依此功德。第一國王第二父母第三施主第四法界一切眾生。悉皆速證無上菩提 (T868 [XVIII] 284b18-20) [Tsukinowa adds that the Three Jewels 三寶 are missing from the list of the four types of en in the above (the dānapati 施主 is included instead) because here the benefit of 三寶 is what is directed to all of the four]. |
439 |
|
The “Six Perfections Sūtra” 六波羅蜜經 (Dasheng liqu liu boluomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 T261) was met with lavish praise and great acclaim immediately after it was completed, and multiple commentaries 疏 were composed at the same time. Tsukinowa maintains that these facts suggest that the text was actually composed, rather than translated, by a group of scholars who worked at the translation bureau 譯場. (Tsukinowa adds that this situation is probably similar to the re-“translation” of the Sūtra of the Humane Kings 仁王經 by Amoghavajra 不空.) A number of elements in the chapter on the perfection of dhyāna 靜慮波羅蜜多品 and the chapter on the perfection of prajñā 般若波羅蜜多品 are clearly taken from the chapter on expedient means 方便品 of Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sūtra 法華經 T262, especially the latter half of the 十如是. There are also other elements that correspond to the “Weishi lun” 唯識論 [? unclear which text --- MR] , the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith 起信論 T1666, the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda-sūtra 勝鬘經, and the Ratnagotravibhāga 寶性論 T1611. Tsukinowa adds that there are quite a few oddities in this scripture (436-437), such as: - The title announces that the text treats six perfections 六波羅蜜多經, but in the first part of the text itself we read “the ten perfections are already completely developed” 十波羅蜜悉已圓滿. - The texts speaks of both “the five rebirth destinies in the three realms” 三界五道 and “four rebirths in the six destinies” 六趣四生. The terms “five paths” 五道, “six paths” 六道, ”five destinations” 五趣 and “six destinations” 六趣 are all used inconsistently and interchangeably to refer to rebirth destinies. - The sixty-five kinds of “pure precepts” 淨戒 in the chapter on the perfection of śīla 淨戒波羅蜜多品 are unique (436). - The text speaks of “three incalculable kalpas” 三無數劫, but also states 於三阿僧企耶圓滿六種波羅蜜多大海法」(T261 [VIII] 866a6-7). Tsukinowa wonders if the translators thought that 阿僧企耶 was a variation of 阿僧祇劫. - The text uses different translation/transliteration words for the same terms, including: 慈氏 and 彌勒 for Maitreya; 三昧 and 三摩地 for samādhi; 緣覺, 獨覺, and 辟支佛 for pratyekabuddha; 衆生 and 有情 for “sentient being”; 世尊 and 薄伽梵 for Bhagavan; 文殊師利 and 曼珠室利 for Mañjuśrī; 迦嚕羅 and 迦嚕拏; and so on (436-437). Tsukinowa conjectures that maybe the production of such a text was intended to answer the demand of the time for something new, or something that incorporates existing teachings into one picture, or for a comprehensive system of Buddhism in China (437-438). |
436-438 |
|
Tsukinowa states that the correct date of the Shouhu guojie zhu tuoluoni jing 守護國界主陀羅尼經 (T997) is probably Zhenyuan 貞元 19 (803) as recorded in the Song [gao]seng zhuan 宋僧傳, not Zhenyuan 貞元 6 (790), as recorded in the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 and other materials (438). Tsukinowa argues that none of the ten juan of T997 is a true translation on the following grounds: - Seven of ten juan, from the second half of the dhāraṇī chapter 陀羅尼品 to the end of the “Banre genben shiye zhuangyan” chapter 般若根本事業荘嚴品, have largely the same contents of the Tuoluonizizaiwang pusa pin 陀羅尼自在王菩薩品 of the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 (Tathāgatamahākaruṇā-nirdeśa T397[2]); - The long series of verses at the end of the ninth chapter 品, as well as the eleventh chapter, 嘱累品, are taken also from the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 T397; - The first part of the dharaṇī chapter is based on the Zhu xin pin 住心品 of the Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經, and on the Huixiang lun jing 廻向輪經 T998; - The tenth chapter, on Ajātaśatru receiving a prophecy 阿闍世王受記品, is based on the ten dreams 十夢 of King *Kṛkin 訖哩枳王 [reported e.g. in Ch 3 of AKBh --- MR]. - At the end of the tenth chapter the we find an analogy to iron, which when made into a ball, will sink, but will float when made into a bowl (T997 [XIX] 574c15-17). This conceit is well-known and also cited in the Abhidharmakośa Thus, the ninth chapter, the “Tuoluoni gongde guiyi pin” 陀羅尼功德軌儀品 is the only one left, but Tsukinowa maintains that probably the Shouhu jing fa 守護經法 in this chapter was also compiled by Prajñā himself. (438). |
438 |
|
Tsukinowa suggests that the Zhu Fo jingjie she zhenshi jing 諸佛境界攝眞實經 (T868) was produced between the Shouhu jing 守護經 T997 and the Xin di guan jing 心地觀經 T159. Tsukinowa makes the following observations about T868’s relations to other scriptures: The second chapter, on birth 出生品, is taken verbatim from the Vajraśekhara-sūtra(全く金剛頂經のまま). The “abhiṣeka to bind conditions” 結縁灌頂 in the third chapter, “Jingang jie da daochang pin” 金剛界大道場品, is taken from the *Vairocanasamādhi-sūtra 毘盧遮那三摩地經 T876 by Vajrabodhi 金剛智, the 金剛頂蓮華部心念誦儀軌 T873 by Amoghavajra 不空, etc. The five types of samādhi 五種三昧at the end is unique to Prajña 般若, who explains it in T997 and T159 as well. The phrase 四恩報答七難消滅 at the end of the chapter five, “Jingang jie wai gongyang pin” 金剛界外供養品, anticipates T159. Chapter six, “Xiuxing yigui pin” 修行儀軌品, is taken from materials such as the 略出經 (金剛頂瑜伽中略出念誦經 T866) by Vajrabodhi 金剛智. Chapter eight, “Chinian pin” 持念品, is also influenced by T866 (juan 4). Tsukinowa concludes that T868 is based on the Vajraśekhara, and was produced to serve as an introduction to it. He agrees with Ōmura Seigai 大村西崖, who states in his Mikkyō hattatsu shi 密教發達志 that T868 is a conspectus of various scriptures, refining, epitomising and synthesising their contents 綜合折衷し打て洗錬したるもの. |
440 |
|
Tsukinowa states that some parts of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 大方廣佛華嚴經 T293 were added sometime after its first production. He believes that Prajñā/Prajña himself added those elements, which include: A detailed explanation of the ālayavijñāna 阿頼耶識 in juan 6 and 10. These passages are unique to T293, that is, unparalleled in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and other Chinese translations; The healing method 療病法 of Samantanetra 普眼長者 in juan 11; A lengthy lament from King Anala in juan 11 and 12; Fifty-seven stanzas recited by Prince Weidezhu 威德主太子 on the hindrances of women 女人の障; The explanation of the twelve dhūta 十二頭陀 from the end of juan 23 to the half of 24; and Admonitions 教誡 of Mañjuśrī 文殊 (Taishō 837a-838a) in juan 28 (442-443). Tsukinowa also discusses an explanation of Samantabhadra’s Ten Great Vows普賢十大願 appearing in juan 40 of T293. He states that the Encomium on [Samantabhadra’s] Vow to Practice 行願讚 was added to the end of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka in the extant Sanskrit and Tibetan versions, but originally was an independent text, as Buddhabhadra 覺賢 translated it as a completely different text, the Bhadracarīpraṇidhāna 文殊師利發願經 T296. Tsukinowa argues that the explanation of the Encomium was therefore composed after the Encomium was added to the *Buddhāvataṃsaka, and proposes that it was also added to the text by Prajña himself. Tsukinowa also notes that this explanation reorders the stanzas of the Encomium, moving nine stanzas fromm the middle to the end (443). In a word, T293 feigns the impression of a new translation by adding material to the text, but is based more on T279 than on the original Sanskrit. For a clear example, verses at the end of juan 29 are actually from the end verse of T279, but are not included in Sanskrit or Tibetan (443). |
442-443 |