Source: Kamata 1982

Edit

166

Kamata states that the biography of Kang Senghui 康僧會 in CSZJJ ascribes to Kang Senghui titles such as the Anannianmi jing 阿難念彌經 (? cf. Alinianmi jing 阿離念彌經 T152(88)), Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經 (cf. T152(89), Caiwei wang jing 察微王經 (T152(90)), Fanhuang wang jing 梵皇王經 (cf. T152(91)), Dao pin 道品(?), and Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152. CSZJJ states in addition that Kang Senghui wrote commentaries on the Anban shouyi jing 安般守意經 T602, the Fa jing jing 法鏡鏡 (Ugraparipṛcchā T322), and the Dao shu jing 道樹經 (“Bodhi Tree Sūtra”) (又注安般守意法鏡道樹三經, T2145 [LV] 97a15); and prefaces to other scriptures. Kamata maintains that the ascriptions given to 康僧會 in CSZJJ are dubious, and most of those six entries are later additions (220).

Dao’an, as cited in CSZJJ, ascribes only two titles to Kang Senghui, Liu du ji jing T152 and a Wu pin jing 呉品經. Kamata thinks these ascriptions are correct. Kamata claims that the so-called Anannianianmi jing 阿難念彌經, Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經, Caiwei wang jing 察微王經, and Fanhuang wang jing 梵皇王經 ascribed to Kang Senghui in CSZJJ are actually offshoot texts excerpted from T152 and separately circulated 別行 (220-221).

Kamata states that little is known about the Wu pin 呉品 ascribed to Kang Senghui by Dao’an. CSZJJ states that it had ten chapters, but was already missing at the time of Sengyou. Kamata suspects that this Wu pin is the so-called “Smaller sūtra” 小品 that GSZ lists as a work of Kang Senghui, along with T152 and the Za piyu 雜譬喩 (cf. T206, still ascribed to Kang Senghui in T). [Apparently Kamata does not think the 雜譬喩 should be ascribed to Kang Senghui although it is listed in GSZ --- AI]. LDSBJ states that the Wu pin is a smaller Prajñāpāramitā 小品般若經, but Kamata claims that there is no evidence for that interpretation. Kamata also mentions that some scholars (such as Sakaino 1972, 237-238) suggest that the Wu pin might have been a certain part of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 大明度經 T225 ascribed to Zhi Qian (221).

On Kang’s commentaries, Kamata notes that the preface 自序 to the Anbao shouyi jing 安般守意經 T602 [T602 (XV) 163a6-c8] indicates that Chen Hui 陳慧 wrote a commentary on the text, helped by Kang Senghui. Kamata states it is not known who translated the “Bodhi Tree Sūtra” 道樹經 for which Kang Senghui wrote a commentary. There is a 菩薩道樹經 in Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures (T2145 [LV] 16c19), and the *Siṃhamati-sūtra 私呵昧經 T532 ascribed to Zhi Qian was also called 菩薩道樹經 (T2145 [LV] 6c23). Kamata states (without presenting any clear reasons) that the scripture Kang Senghui wrote the preface for might have been T532 (222).

Edit

220-222

As an example of issues related to ascriptions to Zhi Qian, Kamata discusses information in Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度 preface to his synoptic version of the Śūramgamasamādhi-sūtra 合首楞嚴經序 on the topic of a supposed lost Zhi Qian translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi (206). Kamata summarizes as follows:

Zhi Qian is recorded as having translated several dozen texts from the Huangwu 黄武 era to the Jianxing 建興 era, including the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra. However, the Śūraṃgamasamādhi attributed to Zhi Qian was thought missing by the time of Zhi Mindu 支敏度, while at the same time, an “alternate version” 異本 was extant. This text contained a mix of “refined and coarse” diction, and also mixed Chinese translations and transliterations. Zhi Mindu inferred that probably the extant “alternate version” represented Zhi Qian’s revision of *Lokakṣema’s translation, which was the source of the “coarse” style and the heavy use of transliteration 胡音. On this hypothesis, Zhi Qian would have modified the text in places where he disagreed with *Lokakṣema’s rendering, but left it as it was when he agreed, and Zhi Qian’s revision would be the source of the “refined” diction and the translations of proper names. Thus, the mistaken impression arose that there had been two separate translations of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra, and one was ascribed to *Lokakṣema, and the other to Zhi Qian. The version modified by Zhi Qian was widely circulated (206). Sengyou also reports [incorrectly] that Zhi Qian translated the Śūraṃgamasamādhi separately from Lokaksemas’s work (207).

Kamata states that if Zhi Mindu is correct, there must have been an initial vesrion of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi by *Lokakṣema, and the lost scripture in question should not be [solely?] ascribed to Zhi Qian.

Edit

206-207

Kamata presents a list of thirty-five titles in forty-one juan ascribed to An Shigao in CSZJJ (claimed by Sengyou to be thirty-four titles in forty juan, list on 150-152). Kamata states that twenty of those thirty-five texts are extant today, among which four (安般守意經 T602, 陰持入經 T603, 人本欲生經 T14, and 大道地經 T607) are considered to be genuine An Shigao works. T602 has three prefaces written respectively by Kang Senghui 康僧會, Dao’an, and Xie Fu 謝敷, while T603, T14, and T607 each have a preface by Dao’an. Kamata maintains that those prefaces establish the ascriptions to An Shigao (149-152).

Kamata cites Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, “安世高譯の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyō kenkyū 佛教研究 1 (1927): 152, who held that, based on the examination of the vocabulary commonly used in those four scriptures, the following thirteen scriptures are also genuine An Shigao works: 阿毘曇五法經 T1557, 十報經 T13, 普法義經 T98, 漏分布經 T57, 四諦經 T32, 七處三觀經 T150A, 九横經 T150B, 八正道經 T112, 五十校計經 T397(17), 流攝經 T31, and 是法非法經 T48. The terms Hayashiya paid particular attention in making this claim include一時佛在、聞如是、苦習尽道、直見、直語、直行、五陰、痛癢、思想、and 細滑.

Kamata states that the number of An Shigao’s translation texts increased in the catalogues after CSZJJ, to thirty-five in Fajing, 176 in LDSBJ, thirty-two in Yancong, 172 in DTNDL, and ninety-six in KYL. The Taishō ascribes fifty-five scriptures to An Shigao. According to Kamata, it is generally thought that seventeen titles of the fifty-five in the Taishō are genuinely An Shigao’s work, the other ten are suspicious, and the remaining twenty-eight are not An Shigao’s (153-154).

Edit

149-154

According to Kamata, the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 T630 is the only work ascribed correctly to Zhi Yao 支曜 in the Taishō. Ascriptions of other text to Zhi Yao are not acceptable, namely, the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 (T46), the Xiao dao di jing 小道地經 (T608), the Ma you san xiang jing 馬有三相經 (T114), and the Ma you ba tai pi ren jing 馬有八態譬人經 (T115) (162). [Atsushi: Kamata does not explain why the attribution of those texts to Zhi Yao is incorrect.]

Edit

162

LDSBJ states that Cao Zhi 曹植 proofread 詳定 the [Taizi] Ruiying benqi jing 瑞應本起經 T185, but this must be incorrect. LDSBJ was probably influenced by a mistaken report in GSZ.

Edit

190-191

The Fang guang jing 放光經 [放光般若經] (Larger Prajñāparamitā T221) was initially ascribed to Zhu Zixing 朱子行. It was Fei Changfang who rejected the ascription and reascribed the scripture to *Mokṣala 無羅叉 (the ascription still borne in T) and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭. Kamata quotes a passage from LDSBJ:

而竺道祖僧祐王宗寶唱李廓法上靈裕等諸錄。述著眾經並云。朱士行翻此。蓋據其元尋之人推功歸之耳。房審校勘支敏度錄及高僧傳出經後記諸雜別目等乃是無羅叉竺叔蘭等三人詳譯。朱士行身留停于闐。仍於彼化。唯遣弟子奉齎經來到乎晉地。斯豈得稱士行出也, T2034 (XLIX) 65b11-18.

Kamata agrees with Fei, offering a summary of the translation process of T221 presented in the anonymous “Fang guang jing ji” 放光經記 (preserved in CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 47c10-28). Kamata adds that Dao’an asserts that *Mokṣala handled the Indic text and Zhu Shulan was the(oral) translator. Both Dao’an’s “He Fangguang Guangzan lüe jie xu” 合放光光讚略解序 and the “Fang guang jing ji” record the date of translation as Yuankan 元康 1 (291 CE) (288-290). On the basis of these primary sources, Kamata maintains that T221, ascribed to Mokṣala alone in the Taishō, should be re-ascribed to both Mokṣala and Zhu Shulan or to Zhu Shulan alone (291).

Edit

288-291

According to Kamata, CSZJJ mentions a Dao xing jing 道行經 (Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā) translated by Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, though no such text was mentioned by Dao’an. Later, LDSBJ and other catalogues listed the Zhu Shuofo version as a different text from *Lokakṣema’s. Kamata states that it is clear that there was only ever one Dao xing jing 道行經, that translated by *Lokakṣema T224, so the one ascribed to Zhu Shuofo must refer to the same text, probably considering the role of Zhu Shuofo as co-translator.

Edit

158-159

Kamata states that Bo Yan 白延 is not mentioned in Dao’an’s catalogue, but his biography is in GSZ. In CSZJJ, Sengyou ascribes three titles to Bo Yan: a Śūraṃgamasamadhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 in two juan, Surāta-paripṛccha 須頼經 in one juan (cf. T328, still ascribed to Bo Yan in T), and a Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 in one juan (cf. T744, ascribed in T to Shengjian 聖堅). Sengyou classified all these texts as missing 闕 (186).

Kamata points out that, however, that the Śūraṃgamasamadhi-sūtra is attributed also to another translator, Bo Yan 帛延 (note differing orthography). Kamata quotes part of an anonymous colophon 首楞嚴後記 that records that the Śūraṃgamasamadhi-sūtra was translated in Xian’an 咸安 3 (373 CE) with Zhi Shilun 支施崙 handling the foreign text 胡本, and Bo Yan 帛延 as the translator. According to this preface, T328, a Shangjinguangshou jing 上金光首經, and a Ru huan sanmei jing 如幻三昧經 were also translated by the same team (186-187).

The biography of Bo Yan 白延 is included in CSZJJ (juan 13). According to that source, Bo Yan 白延 translated the aforementioned three texts (i.e., the Śūraṃgamasamadhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經, the Surāta-paripṛccha 須頼經, and the Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經) at the end of the Zhengshi 正始 era (240-248) of the Wei 魏 period. CSZJJ ascribed the same three titles to Bo Yan 白延 (187).

Kamata states that a gap of more than 120 years separates these two supposed translations of the Śūraṃgamasamadhi-sūtra by Bo Yan 帛延 and by Bo Yan 白延. Both reports cannot be correct. Kamata claims that the more reliable record must be the anonymous colophon. This implies that reports about Bo Yan 白延 in CSZJJ and GSZ should be regarded as unreliable and probably fictitious. Huijiao 慧皎 records that Bo Yan 帛延 was also the translator of a Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量清淨平等覺經, but in Kamata's judgement, that report is probably also ill-founded, as Huijiao 慧皎 appears to change the dates of Bo Yan 帛延 from the Eastern Jin 東晋 to the Cao Wei 曹魏 (187).

Edit

186-187

Kamata states that the ascription to Zhi Qian of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 阿彌陀經, i.e. the 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362, is a matter of debate. Although traditional catalogues have ascribed it to Zhi Qian since Dao’an, its vocabulary and style are not typical of Zhi Qian’s work. According to Kamata, some modern scholar(s) suspect that T362 is actually *Lokakṣema’s work, as it uses transliterations and the overall vocabulary has similarities to that of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramita 道行般若經 T224 ascribed to *Lokakṣema. However, Kamata maintains that it is reasonable 穏当 to follow Dao’an and keep the ascription of T362 to Zhi Qian, as it is not appropriate to reascribe the text solely on the basis of similarity of vocabulary.

Edit

214-215

Kamata states that the ascription of the the 法律三昧經 to Zhi Qian may be incorrect, and notes that the text also uses quite a few Daoist terms. He gives a quotation in which the text tries to explain the wu tong 五通 of meditation practice 禅定 in the “hīnayāna” tradition using Daoist terms such as 無為, 避世, 守一, 瞑目, 在神, 道気, 養性, 求昇, and 仙人.

Edit

235-236

Kamata discusses a list of W. Jin translators mentioned in in KYL, noting that it might include figures who never existed, or existed but did not in fact translate. Among these figures, Kamata notes that Ruoluoyan 若羅嚴 does not appear in CSZJJ, LDSBJ, or DTNDL. KYL states that Ruolouyan translated the Shi fei shi jing 時非時經 T794a/b (this ascription is still carried in the Taishō), and further, that the scripture was transcribed by a man of the Liangzhou Commandery 涼州道人 in Khotan 于闐. This report is based on the postface of the sūtra itself (天竺三藏法師若羅嚴，手執梵本，口自宣譯。涼州道人，于闐城中寫訖, T794b [XVII] 739c19-20, missing in the 知恩院 version). KYL dates this translation to the W. Jin period. KYL also states that LDSBJ is incorrect in ascribing the scripture to Faju 法炬. Both versions of the text in the Taishō are ascribed to Ruoluoyan. However, Kamata notes that the text is listed as anonymous in CSZJJ, and that the ascription to Ruoluoyan should be doubted. Even if the preface is correct and the text is indeed the work of Ruoluoyan, the date of the W. Jin is still probably incorrect, since the style of the text appears newer than that of the archaic translation period 古譯時代.

Edit

285-286

The Weimi chi jing 微密持經 is listed in CSZJJ with the alternate title Wuliang men weimi chi jing 無量門微密持經 (Anantamukha-dhāraṇī 無量門微密持經 T1011 ascribed to Zhi Qian). Kamata states that there existed the following three versions of the Anantamukha 微密持經: the Weimie chi jing 微密持經 ascribed to Zhi Qian; the Tuolinni muqie jing 陀隣尼目怯經 [cf. 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 T1015 ascribed to Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多? but see also below --- MR.]; and a Wuruidi zongchi jing 無端底總持經. The latter two are listed in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ.

CSZJJ transmits a “He weimi chi jing ji” 合微密持經記 (“Preface to the Synoptic Anantamukha-dhāranī”) by Zhi Qian 支恭明 (T2145 [LV] 51c17-52a10), which records that a synoptic version of the Anantamukha-dhāranī, the 合微密持經 was compiled by putting the above-listed three versions together. [NOTE: If this is right, either the Tuolinni muqie jing used by Zhi Qian cannot have been T1015, or the ascription of T1015 to Buddhaśānta is wrong, being anachronistic --- MR.] This preface also lists three alternate titles for the Anantamukha: Wuliangmen weimi chi jing 無量門微密持經, Anantuomoqie nikeli tuolinni jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經, and Cheng dao xiang mo de yiqiezhi 成道降魔得一切智. Kamata states that probably the first title was regarded as the most official correct/official 正式な經名, as it is used in the Taishō. However, Kamata also points out that T1011 itself says at the end that its true title is Wuliang weimi zhi chi 無量微密之持, and the alternate title is Cheng dao xiang mo de yizieqhi: 賢者舍利弗白佛言。當何名此經。佛言是法之要。名無量門微密之持。一名成道降魔得一切智。當奉持之 ( T1011 (XIX) 682b3-5). (212).

Kamata maintains that the fact that Zhi Qian compiled his synoptic Anantamukha by putting these three versions together indicates that he examined already existing translations to help work on his revision/translation, as seems to have been the case with his Śūraṃagamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 (lost) and Dharmapada 法句經 T210 (see separate CBC@ entries) (213).

Edit

212-213

Tandi 曇諦 is reported in GSZ (with the name Tandi 曇帝), LDSBJ, and KYL. The Tanwude jiemo 曇無德羯磨 T1433 is ascribed to him (as still in T) in GSZ (and also in LDSBJ and KYL), with the place of translation the Baima si 白馬寺 in Luoyang 洛陽. Kamata points out that it is questionable if this Baimao si actually existed. LDSBJ claims that the ascription to Tandi is based on a record in Zhu Daozu’s supposed catalogue of Wei and Wu translations 竺道祖魏錄, but Zhu Daozu’s catalogue itself should not be taken as a genuine and reliable source. As for the Si fen lü jiemo 四分律羯磨 (*Dharmaguptaka-karma) ascribed to Tandi, Kamata summarises Hirakawa’s view that this text was produced after the translation of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 T1428, as in the case of the Karma 羯磨 (i.e. a text of nearly the same title, ; cf. 四分雜羯磨 T1432) ascribed to Kang Sengkai. Both the Si fen lü jiemo and the Karma were therefore not translation texts, but were compiled in China.

Edit

184-185

According to Kamata, the Da biqiu san qian weiyi 大比丘三千威儀T1470 contains a passage glossing the word busa 布薩 (*poṣaḍha?) with explicit reference to the Chinese language under the name of the Qin dynasty: 布薩者，秦[v.l. 此 M]言淨住 (T1470 [XXIV] 913b22). The vocabulary of T1470 is also rather new. Hence, it should be a work of the Qin period, and not by An Shigao, as per the attribution still carried in T. T1470 was included in the Sengyou’s newly compiled supplement to the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 新集續撰失譯雜經, having been regard as anonymous from an early period.

Edit

181

Both CSZJJ and GSZ include the story of the production of the Laozi hua Hu jing 老子化胡經 T2139 by Wang Fu 王浮. In this story, Wang Fu apologizes to Bo Yuan 帛遠 (aka Bo Fazu 白法祖) after his death. Kamata hypothesizes that the inclusion of this tale may well reflect some historical facts about the execution of Bo Yuan and his elder brother – those who debated against Bo might well have been Daoists 道士 and Bo’s execution might have been caused by false charges made by them, and/or those who executed Bo and his brother might well have been sympathizers of Daoism (301-302).

Kamata thinks that it is probably true that a Laozi hua Hu jing was produced in the end of the W. Jin, when Daoism grew rapidly and became a competitor of Buddhism. Kamata refers to Yoshioka’s work, which claims that the contents of the earliest form of the Laozi hua Hu jing can be known to a certain extent from some existent materials. Kamata adds that the Laozi hua Hu jing is quoted in the works of Dao’an, Zhen Luan 甄鸞, Falin 法琳, and Xiangmai 祥邁 (under various titles, such as 老子化胡經, 老子西昇化胡經, 明威化胡經, 化胡消水經, and 老子開天經), but these versions of the text are all later productions, different from the earliest version. The Dunhuang 敦煌 version discovered in the modern time is also thought to be a later work, produced in or after the Tang period (302-304).

Edit

299-304