|
|
According to Kamata, the anonymous colophon to the Fangguang jing 放光經記 (“Larger Prajñapāramitā”, T221) records that *Mokṣala 無叉羅 handled the original text and Zhu Falan 竺叔蘭 was the oral translator(?) 口授. GSZ records the same, except that it writes 無羅叉 instead of 無叉羅 for *Mokṣala. (196).
Edit
|
196 |
According to Kamata, the anonymous colophon to the Fangguang jing 放光經記 (“Larger Prajnaparamita”, T221) records that *Moksala 無叉羅 handled the original text and Zhu Falan 竺叔蘭 was the oral translator(?) 口授. GSZ records the same, except that it writes 無羅叉 instead of 無叉羅 for *Moksala. (196). *Moksala, 無羅叉, 無叉羅 Zhu Shulan 竺尗蘭, 竺叔蘭, Zhu Fashu 竺法寂, 竺法叔 T0221; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 放光般若經 |
|
|
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 |
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 (*posadha?) 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. 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 |
|
|
According to Kamata, the Jie xiao zai jing 戒消災經 T1477, ascribed to Zhi Qian, is a problematic text, as it features the benefit of keeping the precepts 戒, and so is not a proper precepts scripture. In addition, it is not easy to determine the production date of this scripture, as technical terms related to precepts 戒 hardly appear in it. There is also a suspicion that T1477 is apocryphal, since it contains a passage that expresses a rather Chinese idea: 因便為說三自歸、五重[v.l. 種 SYMP]戒：一曰慈仁不殺；二曰清信不盜；三曰守貞不婬；四曰口無妄言；五曰孝順不醉 (T1477 [XXIV] 945a19-21). T1477 was initially classified as anonymous in CSZJJ, and ascribed to Zhi Qian only in later catalogues.
Edit
|
181 |
According to Kamata, the Jie xiao zai jing 戒消災經 T1477, ascribed to Zhi Qian, is a problematic text, as it features the benefit of keeping the precepts 戒, and so is not a proper precepts scripture. In addition, it is not easy to determine the production date of this scripture, as technical terms related to precepts 戒 hardly appear in it. There is also a suspicion that T1477 is apocryphal, since it contains a passage that expresses a rather Chinese idea: 因便為說三自歸、五重[v.l. 種 SYMP]戒:一曰慈仁不殺;二曰清信不盜;三曰守貞不婬;四曰口無妄言;五曰孝順不醉 (T1477 [XXIV] 945a19-21). T1477 was initially classified as anonymous in CSZJJ, and ascribed to Zhi Qian only in later catalogues. T1477; Jie xiaofu 戒消伏; 佛說戒消災經 |
|
|
Kamata states that the Bu zi shou yi jing 不自守意經 (T107) ascribed to Zhi Qian, 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) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜, may be by An Shigao, but there is no decisive evidence either way. The anonymous Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period (T101) may also be An Shigao’s work.
Edit
|
154 |
Kamata states that the Bu zi shou yi jing 不自守意經 (T107) ascribed to Zhi Qian, 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) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜, may be by An Shigao, but there is no decisive evidence either way. The anonymous Samyuktagama 雜阿含經 of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period (T101) may also be An Shigao’s work. T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章 T0107; 自守亦不自守經; 佛說不自守意經 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 |
|
|
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 |
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 Taisho. Ascriptions of other text to Zhi Yao are not acceptable, namely, the Analu 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.] 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 |
|
|
Kamata states that the ascriptions to Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 for the Ahan kou jie 阿含口解, the Shi’er yinyuan jing 十二因縁經 [cf. 阿含口解十二因縁經 T1508 ascribed to 安玄and 嚴佛調], and the Pusa nei xi liu poluomiduo jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 (T778) are incorrect, claiming that the only translation work of Yan Fotiao is the Ugra-paripṛcchā 法鏡經 T322, which he co-translated with An Xuan 安玄.
Edit
|
166 |
Kamata states that the ascriptions to Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 for the Ahan kou jie 阿含口解, the Shi’er yinyuan jing 十二因縁經 [cf. 阿含口解十二因縁經 T1508 ascribed to 安玄and 嚴佛調], and the Pusa nei xi liu poluomiduo jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 (T778) are incorrect, claiming that the only translation work of Yan Fotiao is the Ugra-pariprccha 法鏡經 T322, which he co-translated with An Xuan 安玄. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Ahan kou jie 阿含口解 T0322; Fa jing jing; 法鏡經 T0778; 佛說菩薩內習六波羅蜜經 T1508; 阿含口解十二因緣經 |
|
|
Kamata cites Hirakawa Akira 平川彰, Ritsuzō no kenkyū『律蔵の研究』 (Sankibō busshorin 山喜房佛書林, 1960), 191 ff., who argues that a number of terms used in the Fan jie zui bao qingzhong jing 犯戒罪報輕重經 T1467 in one juan, ascribed to An Shigao, became established translation words only after the *Daśādhyaya-vinaya 十誦律 T1435, and hence, that T1467 is not An Shigao’s work. The ascription to An Shigao was first given by LDSBJ.
Edit
|
180-181 |
Kamata cites Hirakawa Akira 平川彰, Ritsuzo no kenkyu『律蔵の研究』 (Sankibo busshorin 山喜房佛書林, 1960), 191 ff., who argues that a number of terms used in the Fan jie zui bao qingzhong jing 犯戒罪報輕重經 T1467 in one juan, ascribed to An Shigao, became established translation words only after the *Dasadhyaya-vinaya 十誦律 T1435, and hence, that T1467 is not An Shigao’s work. The ascription to An Shigao was first given by LDSBJ. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1467; 佛說犯戒罪報輕重經 |
|
|
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 |
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. T0185; 太子瑞應本起經 |
|
|
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 |
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 lu 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 lu jiemo and the Karma were therefore not translation texts, but were compiled in China. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1432; 曇無德律部雜羯磨 T1433; 羯磨 |
|
|
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 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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 首楞嚴經 in two juan, Surata-pariprccha 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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 首楞嚴經, the Surata-pariprccha 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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 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 Sukhavativyuha 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). Bo Yan 帛延 Zhi Shilun, 支施崙 T0328; Xulai pusa jing 須賴菩薩經; 佛說須賴經 |
|
|
Kamata remarks that Zhi Jiangliangjie 支彊梁接 and An Faxian 安法賢, to whom LDSBJ ascribes several texts, citing the Wei catalogue 魏世錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, may be fictitious persons. Translator-monks with such names might have existed, but ascriptions to them are groundless, e.g. that of the Fa hua sanmei jing 法華三昧經 (cf. T269) in six juan to Zhi Jiangliangjie and that of the Luomoqie jing 羅摩伽經 (cf. T294) and a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大涅槃經 to An Faxian.
Edit
|
187-188 |
Kamata remarks that Zhi Jiangliangjie 支彊梁接 and An Faxian 安法賢, to whom LDSBJ ascribes several texts, citing the Wei catalogue 魏世錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, may be fictitious persons. Translator-monks with such names might have existed, but ascriptions to them are groundless, e.g. that of the Fa hua sanmei jing 法華三昧經 (cf. T269) in six juan to Zhi Jiangliangjie and that of the Luomoqie jing 羅摩伽經 (cf. T294) and a Mahaparinirvana-sutra 大涅槃經 to An Faxian. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0269; 佛說法華三昧經 T0294; 佛說羅摩伽經 |
|
|
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 to Zhi Qian of the Sukhavativyuha-sutra 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 *Lokaksema’s work, as it uses transliterations and the overall vocabulary has similarities to that of the Astasahasrika prajnaparamita 道行般若經 T224 ascribed to *Lokaksema. 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. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0362; 佛說阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 |
|
|
Assuming that the authorial “I” 僕 of the Faju jing xu 法句經序 (preface to the Dharmapada T210) preserved in CSZJJ should be Zhi Qian himself, Kamata reads the preface as recording roughly [Kamata states that this passage is not very clearly written] that Zhu Jiangyan 竺将炎 translated the Dharmapada 法句經 brought to China by Weiqinan 維紙難 (*Vighna?), but Zhi Qian found this version problematic, as Zhu Jiangyan did not know Chinese well. Zhi Qian obtained the original verses and thirteen new chapters from Zhu Jiangyan, and from these materials, Zhi Qian produced a new version consisting of thirty-nine stories. Kamata supplements this information with a passage about Weiqinan from the CSZJJ biography of An Xuan 安玄, and also summarizes the biography of Weiqinan in GSZ (210-211). Kamata points out that the extant T210 has thirty-nine chapters 品. Hence, T210 should be identified with Zhi Qian’s version of the text (211). CSZJJ records both a Zhi Qian and a Zhu Jiangyan version, but the idea that two versions existed is probably erroneous. Kamata maintains that T210 should be classified as co-translated by Zhu Jiangyan and Zhi Qian. Dao’an ascribes the scripture to Zhi Qian only.
Edit
|
208-211 |
Assuming that the authorial “I” 僕 of the Faju jing xu 法句經序 (preface to the Dharmapada T210) preserved in CSZJJ should be Zhi Qian himself, Kamata reads the preface as recording roughly [Kamata states that this passage is not very clearly written] that Zhu Jiangyan 竺将炎 translated the Dharmapada 法句經 brought to China by Weiqinan 維紙難 (*Vighna?), but Zhi Qian found this version problematic, as Zhu Jiangyan did not know Chinese well. Zhi Qian obtained the original verses and thirteen new chapters from Zhu Jiangyan, and from these materials, Zhi Qian produced a new version consisting of thirty-nine stories. Kamata supplements this information with a passage about Weiqinan from the CSZJJ biography of An Xuan 安玄, and also summarizes the biography of Weiqinan in GSZ (210-211). Kamata points out that the extant T210 has thirty-nine chapters 品. Hence, T210 should be identified with Zhi Qian’s version of the text (211). CSZJJ records both a Zhi Qian and a Zhu Jiangyan version, but the idea that two versions existed is probably erroneous. Kamata maintains that T210 should be classified as co-translated by Zhu Jiangyan and Zhi Qian. Dao’an ascribes the scripture to Zhi Qian only. Zhi Qian 支謙 [Zhu] Jiangyan, [竺]將炎 T0210; 法句經; Dharmapada |
|
|
Kamata states that the Buddhabhadra translation of the Anantamukha-dhāraṇī 微密持經, the Chu wuliang men chi jing 出生無量門持經 T1012, lists three alternate titles for itself: Chu wuliang men chi 出生無量門持, Yi sheng bu chu dao xing 一生補處道行, and Cheng dao xiang mo de yiqiezhi 成道降魔得一切智.
Edit
|
213 |
Kamata states that the Buddhabhadra translation of the Anantamukha-dharani 微密持經, the Chu wuliang men chi jing 出生無量門持經 T1012, lists three alternate titles for itself: Chu wuliang men chi 出生無量門持, Yi sheng bu chu dao xing 一生補處道行, and Cheng dao xiang mo de yiqiezhi 成道降魔得一切智. T1012; 佛說出生無量門持經; Cheng dao xiang mo de yiqiezhi 成道降魔得一切智; Yi sheng bu chu dao xing 一生補處道行; Chu wuliang men chi 出生無量門持; Xin weimi chi jing 新微密持經 |
|
|
Kamata discusses ascriptions to An Shigao, and is willing, on various grounds, to accept the ascriptions for T13, T14, T31, T32, T48, T57, T98, T112, T150A, T150B, T397(17), T602, T603, T607, and T1557. This implies that in Kamata's opinion, the ascriptions for all other texts attributed to An Shigao in T are less reliable, namely, T16, T36, T91, T92, T105, T109, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T605, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T792, T1467, T1470, T1492, and T2027. This entry lists all the texts in this latter group.
Edit
|
149-154 |
Kamata discusses ascriptions to An Shigao, and is willing, on various grounds, to accept the ascriptions for T13, T14, T31, T32, T48, T57, T98, T112, T150A, T150B, T397(17), T602, T603, T607, and T1557. This implies that in Kamata's opinion, the ascriptions for all other texts attributed to An Shigao in T are less reliable, namely, T16, T36, T91, T92, T105, T109, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T605, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T792, T1467, T1470, T1492, and T2027. This entry lists all the texts in this latter group. T0016; 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T0036; 本相猗致經 T0091; 婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T0092; 十支居士八城人經 T0105; 五陰譬喻經; 河中大聚沫經 T0109; 佛說轉法輪經 T0131; 佛說婆羅門避死經; 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 T0167; 太子慕魄經 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 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 T0525; 佛說長者子懊惱三處經; San chu nao jing 三處惱經 T0526; 佛說長者子制經; 佛説長者子制經 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 T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經 T0554; 佛說柰女耆婆經 T0604; 佛說禪行三十七品經 T0605; 禪行法想經 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 T0701; 佛說溫室洗浴眾僧經 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 T0779; 佛說八大人覺經 T0791; 佛說出家緣經 T0792; 佛說法受塵經 T1467; 佛說犯戒罪報輕重經 T1470; 大比丘三千威儀 T1492; 佛說舍利弗悔過經 T2027; 迦葉結經; Jiashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經 |
|
|
Edit
|
166 |
Ahan kou jie 阿含口解 |
|
|
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 |
According to Kamata, CSZJJ mentions a Dao xing jing 道行經 (Astasahasrika prajnaparamita) 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 *Lokaksema’s. Kamata states that it is clear that there was only ever one Dao xing jing 道行經, that translated by *Lokaksema T224, so the one ascribed to Zhu Shuofo must refer to the same text, probably considering the role of Zhu Shuofo as co-translator. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛/Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 T0224; 道行般若經 |
|
|
Kamata quotes a paragraph from Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度 preface to his synoptic version of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩經序, which records that the original text of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 維摩詰經 (VKN) came from Vaiśālī 維耶離, and was brought to China under the Han. The text was first translated by Zhi Qian, and then again, separately, by Dharmarakṣa and by Zhu Falan 竺叔蘭. In compiling his synoptic version, Zhi Mindu took Zhi Qian’s translation as his main text 主 and the translation by Zhu Falan as a supplementary 従, AND reorganized the scripture to make it easier to read, by dividing the content into chapters and inserting spaces between phrases (207-208).
According to Zhi Mindu’s preface, Zhi Qian’s VKN was still extant in his time. Still, Kamata point outs, the text was listed as a missing scripture in Sengyou’s newly compiled catalogue of sūtras, Vinaya and śastras 新集經律論錄, which was based on Dao’an. Apart from Zhi Qian’s VKN, that catalogue records that a VKN ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (with an alternate title Weimojie ming jie 維摩詰名解) also existed. The VKN ascribed to Zhi Qian has been regarded as extant since Fajing. However, according to Kamata, the VKN ascribed to Zhi Qian in the Taishō, T474 , is not Zhi Qian’s work.
Different views have been presented about the true ascription of T474: Some reascribe(s) it to Dharmarakṣa (Kamata cites Ōno Genmyō’s bekkan to the Bussho kaisetsu daijten 小野玄妙『仏教經典総論』（『仏書解説大辞典』別巻）, 43); other(s) think that the extant 維摩經 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of Zhi Qian’s translation (Kamata cites Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋『支那仏教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 147-148).
Edit
|
207-208 |
Kamata quotes a paragraph from Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度 preface to his synoptic version of the Vimalakirti-nirdesa 合維摩經序, which records that the original text of the Vimalakirti-nirdesa 維摩詰經 (VKN) came from Vaisali 維耶離, and was brought to China under the Han. The text was first translated by Zhi Qian, and then again, separately, by Dharmaraksa and by Zhu Falan 竺叔蘭. In compiling his synoptic version, Zhi Mindu took Zhi Qian’s translation as his main text 主 and the translation by Zhu Falan as a supplementary 従, AND reorganized the scripture to make it easier to read, by dividing the content into chapters and inserting spaces between phrases (207-208).
According to Zhi Mindu’s preface, Zhi Qian’s VKN was still extant in his time. Still, Kamata point outs, the text was listed as a missing scripture in Sengyou’s newly compiled catalogue of sutras, Vinaya and sastras 新集經律論錄, which was based on Dao’an. Apart from Zhi Qian’s VKN, that catalogue records that a VKN ascribed to Dharmaraksa (with an alternate title Weimojie ming jie 維摩詰名解) also existed. The VKN ascribed to Zhi Qian has been regarded as extant since Fajing. However, according to Kamata, the VKN ascribed to Zhi Qian in the Taisho, T474 , is not Zhi Qian’s work.
Different views have been presented about the true ascription of T474: Some reascribe(s) it to Dharmaraksa (Kamata cites Ono Genmyo’s bekkan to the Bussho kaisetsu daijten 小野玄妙『仏教經典総論』(『仏書解説大辞典』別巻), 43); other(s) think that the extant 維摩經 is Dharmaraksa’s revision of Zhi Qian’s translation (Kamata cites Sakaino Koyo 境野黄洋『支那仏教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 147-148). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0474; 佛說維摩詰經 |
|
|
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 |
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 Tomojiro 林屋友次郎, “安世高譯の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyo kenkyu 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 Taisho ascribes fifty-five scriptures to An Shigao. According to Kamata, it is generally thought that seventeen titles of the fifty-five in the Taisho are genuinely An Shigao’s work, the other ten are suspicious, and the remaining twenty-eight are not An Shigao’s (153-154). An Shigao, 安世高 T0013; 長阿含十報法經; Shi bao jing 十報經 T0014; 人本欲生經 T0031; 一切流攝守因經; 流攝經 T0032; 四諦經 T0048; 是法非法經 T0057; 漏分布經 T0098; 普法義經 T0112; 佛說八正道經; 雜阿含三十章 T0150A; 七處三觀經 T0150B; 九橫經; 雜阿含三十章 T0602; 佛說大安般守意經 T0603; 陰持入經 T0607; 道地經 T1557; 阿毘曇五法行經 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 |
|
|
It is not known where Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (*Saṃghavarman) was from. Kamata suggests that he might be from Sodgiana 康居国 as his name contains the ethnonym Kang 康. It is recorded that Kang Sengkai translated four texts including the Ugra-paripṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 T310(19). LDSBJ ascribes two scriptures to Kang Sengkai, the Ugra-paripṛcchā and the Wuliangshou (*Amitābha) jing 無量壽經 (*Sukhāvatīvyūha) T360. KYL records three titles ascribed to Kang Sengkai, Ugra-paripṛcchā, Wuliangshou jing, and the Si fen za jiemo 四分雜羯磨 T1432, all of which were extant in Zhisheng’s time (183). All three texts still carry the ascription to Kang Sengkai in T. Kamata maintains that all these ascriptions must be incorrect, on the following grounds (183-184):
According to Kamata, there are three competing ascriptions for T360: a) Kang Sengkai, b) Dharmarakṣa , and c) Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 and Baoyun 寶雲. None of them has been proven correct to date. The ascription to Kang Sengkai was first given by LDSBJ, and accepted by succeeding catalogues. LDSBJ’s view is supposedly based on the Jin catalogue 晋世雜錄 by Zhu Daozu 竺道祖and the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄. The former catalogue was lost by the time of Fei, as Fei himself records. Kamata speculates that Fei probably learned about the record in those catalogues via some other catalogue(s). As CSZJJ does not record any scripture ascribed to Kang Sengkai, most modern scholars do not accept the ascription of T360 to Kang Sengkai. Kamata cites work by Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 (『佛教經典成立史論』, 法蔵館, 1946, 220;『中国浄土教理史』, 法蔵館, 1964, 40); Ōno Genmyō 小野玄妙 (『佛教經典総論』, 『佛書解説大辞典』別巻, 32-34); and Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達 (『原始浄土思想の研究』, 岩波書店, 1970, 62-64 ).
The ascription of T310(19) to Kang Sengkai was rejected in KYL. Most modern scholars also reject this ascription. Kamata cites Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (『初期大乗佛教の研究』, 春秋社, 1968, 488-489).
Kamata asserts that the ascription of T1432 (曇無德律部雜羯磨) to Kang Sengkai is also incorrect.
Kamata states that some scholars have indeed doubted the very existence of Kang Sengkai, and suspect that his name actually refers to Kang Senghui 康僧會 of the Wei 呉 (Kamata cites Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, 『支那佛教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 241-242). Kamata himself holds that it may be a little far-fetched to deny the existence of Kang Sengkai altogether, since GSZ reports his life, but agrees that the ascriptions to him should be rejected (184).
Edit
|
183-184 |
It is not known where Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (*Samghavarman) was from. Kamata suggests that he might be from Sodgiana 康居国 as his name contains the ethnonym Kang 康. It is recorded that Kang Sengkai translated four texts including the Ugra-pariprccha 郁伽長者所問經 T310(19). LDSBJ ascribes two scriptures to Kang Sengkai, the Ugra-pariprccha and the Wuliangshou (*Amitabha) jing 無量壽經 (*Sukhavativyuha) T360. KYL records three titles ascribed to Kang Sengkai, Ugra-pariprccha, Wuliangshou jing, and the Si fen za jiemo 四分雜羯磨 T1432, all of which were extant in Zhisheng’s time (183). All three texts still carry the ascription to Kang Sengkai in T. Kamata maintains that all these ascriptions must be incorrect, on the following grounds (183-184):
According to Kamata, there are three competing ascriptions for T360: a) Kang Sengkai, b) Dharmaraksa , and c) Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 and Baoyun 寶雲. None of them has been proven correct to date. The ascription to Kang Sengkai was first given by LDSBJ, and accepted by succeeding catalogues. LDSBJ’s view is supposedly based on the Jin catalogue 晋世雜錄 by Zhu Daozu 竺道祖and the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄. The former catalogue was lost by the time of Fei, as Fei himself records. Kamata speculates that Fei probably learned about the record in those catalogues via some other catalogue(s). As CSZJJ does not record any scripture ascribed to Kang Sengkai, most modern scholars do not accept the ascription of T360 to Kang Sengkai. Kamata cites work by Mochizuki Shinko 望月信亨 (『佛教經典成立史論』, 法蔵館, 1946, 220;『中国浄土教理史』, 法蔵館, 1964, 40); Ono Genmyo 小野玄妙 (『佛教經典総論』, 『佛書解説大辞典』別巻, 32-34); and Fujita Kotatsu 藤田宏達 (『原始浄土思想の研究』, 岩波書店, 1970, 62-64 ).
The ascription of T310(19) to Kang Sengkai was rejected in KYL. Most modern scholars also reject this ascription. Kamata cites Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (『初期大乗佛教の研究』, 春秋社, 1968, 488-489).
Kamata asserts that the ascription of T1432 (曇無德律部雜羯磨) to Kang Sengkai is also incorrect.
Kamata states that some scholars have indeed doubted the very existence of Kang Sengkai, and suspect that his name actually refers to Kang Senghui 康僧會 of the Wei 呉 (Kamata cites Sakaino Koyo 境野黄洋, 『支那佛教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 241-242). Kamata himself holds that it may be a little far-fetched to deny the existence of Kang Sengkai altogether, since GSZ reports his life, but agrees that the ascriptions to him should be rejected (184). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 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 |
|
|
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 |
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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 合首楞嚴經序 on the topic of a supposed lost Zhi Qian translation of the Suramgamasamadhi (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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra. However, the Suramgamasamadhi 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 *Lokaksema’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 *Lokaksema’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 Suramgamasamadhi-sutra, and one was ascribed to *Lokaksema, 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 Suramgamasamadhi separately from Lokaksemas’s work (207).
Kamata states that if Zhi Mindu is correct, there must have been an initial vesrion of the Suramgamasamadhi by *Lokaksema, and the lost scripture in question should not be [solely?] ascribed to Zhi Qian. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 Zhi Qian 支謙 Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經; Fangdeng shoulengyan jing 方等首楞嚴經 |
|
|
Kamata maintains that the authorial “I” 僕 of the Faju jing xu 法句經序 (preface to the Dharmapada T210) preserved in CSZJJ is probably Zhi Qian himself. Kamata bases this judgement on the fact that an interlinear note 割注 to the Faju jing 法句經 in the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 records that “Qian wrote the preface.”
Edit
|
211 |
Kamata maintains that the authorial “I” 僕 of the Faju jing xu 法句經序 (preface to the Dharmapada T210) preserved in CSZJJ is probably Zhi Qian himself. Kamata bases this judgement on the fact that an interlinear note 割注 to the Faju jing 法句經 in the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 records that “Qian wrote the preface.” Zhi Qian 支謙 Faju jing xu 法句經序 |
|
|
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 |
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-dharani 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 Buddhasanta 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-dharani”) by Zhi Qian 支恭明 (T2145 [LV] 51c17-52a10), which records that a synoptic version of the Anantamukha-dharani, 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 Buddhasanta 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 Taisho. 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 Suramagamasamadhi-sutra 首楞嚴經 (lost) and Dharmapada 法句經 T210 (see separate CBC@ entries) (213). T1011; 佛說無量門微密持經 T1015; 佛說阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經; Muqu jing 目佉經; Anantamukhanirhara-dharani |
|
|
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 |
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 (Ugrapariprccha T322), and the Dao shu jing 道樹經 (“Bodhi Tree Sutra”) (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 sutra” 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 Prajnaparamita 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 Astasahasrika prajnaparamita 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 Sutra” 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 *Simhamati-sutra 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). Dao pin 道品 T0152; Liu du ji 六度集; 六度集經 T152(88); Alinianmi jing 阿離念彌經 T152(89); Jingmian wang jing 鏡面王經 T152(90); Chawei wang jing 察微王經 T152(91); Fan huang jing 梵皇經; Fanmo huang jing 梵摩皇經 Wupin 吳品; Wu pin jing 呉品經 |
|
|
Kamata holds that the Sishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 was probably composed sometime between the E. Jin and the Southern Dynasty period, but its archetypical elements might well have been developed already in the end of the Latter Han and the Three Kingdom period (in the form of excerpt texts, etc.)
Edit
|
223-224 |
Kamata holds that the Sishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 was probably composed sometime between the E. Jin and the Southern Dynasty period, but its archetypical elements might well have been developed already in the end of the Latter Han and the Three Kingdom period (in the form of excerpt texts, etc.) T0784; 四十二章經 |
|
|
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 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 “hinayana” 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0631; 佛說法律三昧經 |
|
|
Kamata surveys a range of historical sources pertaining to the problem of the date, authorship and nature of the Mouzi li huo lun. He discusses a number of historical personages who have been identified with the "Master Mou" supposed to have authored the text. He also surveys a range of views in modern scholarship about the author and date of the text, citing principally Tokiwa and Liang Qichao: The text was written by Hui Tong 慧通 of the Liu Song (Tokiwa); or by an unknown author in the Jin-Song 晉宋 period (Liang).
Kamata himself maintains that it is most likely that the text was written during the Three Kingdoms period, citing factual information in the text that closely matches known historical events from that time. He points out that the biography of the Buddha contained in the first part of the text was taken from the Taizi ruiying benyi jing 太子瑞應本起經 T185 of Zhi Qian. He also considers the possibility that the text was revised even after the Three Kingdoms period.
Kamata cites:
常盤大定『支那における仏教と儒教・道教』（東洋文庫、昭和5年）, 89-100.
梁啓超『中国仏教研究史』（新文豊出版、民国64年）, 21-23.
Edit
|
236-243 |
Kamata surveys a range of historical sources pertaining to the problem of the date, authorship and nature of the Mouzi li huo lun. He discusses a number of historical personages who have been identified with the "Master Mou" supposed to have authored the text. He also surveys a range of views in modern scholarship about the author and date of the text, citing principally Tokiwa and Liang Qichao: The text was written by Hui Tong 慧通 of the Liu Song (Tokiwa); or by an unknown author in the Jin-Song 晉宋 period (Liang).
Kamata himself maintains that it is most likely that the text was written during the Three Kingdoms period, citing factual information in the text that closely matches known historical events from that time. He points out that the biography of the Buddha contained in the first part of the text was taken from the Taizi ruiying benyi jing 太子瑞應本起經 T185 of Zhi Qian. He also considers the possibility that the text was revised even after the Three Kingdoms period.
Kamata cites:
常盤大定『支那における仏教と儒教・道教』(東洋文庫、昭和5年), 89-100.
梁啓超『中国仏教研究史』(新文豊出版、民国64年), 21-23. 牟子理惑論, Mouzi li huo lun |
|
|
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 |
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 Taisho), 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 sutra 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 Taisho 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. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0794; 佛說時非時經; Shi jing 時經 |
|
|
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. Zhi Lianglouzhi 彊梁婁至 and An Fayin 安法欽 are such dubious figures, as they do not appear in Dao’an’s catalogue, nor in CSZJJ. Zhi Lianglouzhi firsts appears in LDSBJ as the translator 譯出 of the Shi’er you jing 十二遊經 [cf. T195 ascribed to *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽; no texts are ascribed to Zhi Lianglouzhi in the present T --- MR]. An Faqin 安法欽 appears [in LDSBJ, Kamata seems to mean -- AI] as the translator of five titles in twelve juan, including the “Sūtra of the Mighty King Aśoka” 大阿育王經 (阿育王傳 T2042, still ascribed to An Fayin in T) and the Dao shenzu wuji bianjua jing 道神足無極変化經 T816 (which also still carries the ascription to An Faqin). Kamata maintains that these ascriptions to An Faqin are not reliable, as their supposed source is the “catalogue of the Jin era” 晉世雜錄 by Zhu Daoyu 竺道祖.
Edit
|
286 |
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. Zhi Lianglouzhi 彊梁婁至 and An Fayin 安法欽 are such dubious figures, as they do not appear in Dao’an’s catalogue, nor in CSZJJ. Zhi Lianglouzhi firsts appears in LDSBJ as the translator 譯出 of the Shi’er you jing 十二遊經 [cf. T195 ascribed to *Kalodaka 迦留陀伽; no texts are ascribed to Zhi Lianglouzhi in the present T --- MR]. An Faqin 安法欽 appears [in LDSBJ, Kamata seems to mean -- AI] as the translator of five titles in twelve juan, including the “Sutra of the Mighty King Asoka” 大阿育王經 (阿育王傳 T2042, still ascribed to An Fayin in T) and the Dao shenzu wuji bianjua jing 道神足無極変化經 T816 (which also still carries the ascription to An Faqin). Kamata maintains that these ascriptions to An Faqin are not reliable, as their supposed source is the “catalogue of the Jin era” 晉世雜錄 by Zhu Daoyu 竺道祖. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 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 |
- Texts:
T0221; “Larger Prajñāpāramitā”; 放光般若經
- People:
*Mokṣala, 無羅叉, 無叉羅 ("handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本]);
Zhu Shulan 竺尗蘭, 竺叔蘭, Zhu Fashu 竺法寂, 竺法叔 ([orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語)
|
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 |
The Fang guang jing 放光經 [放光般若經] (Larger Prajnaparamita T221) was initially ascribed to Zhu Zixing 朱子行. It was Fei Changfang who rejected the ascription and reascribed the scripture to *Moksala 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 *Moksala handled the Indic text and Zhu Shulan was the(oral) translator. Both Dao’an’s “He Fangguang Guangzan lue 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 Moksala alone in the Taisho, should be re-ascribed to both Moksala and Zhu Shulan or to Zhu Shulan alone (291). *Moksala, 無羅叉, 無叉羅 Zhu Shulan 竺尗蘭, 竺叔蘭, Zhu Fashu 竺法寂, 竺法叔 T0221; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 放光般若經 |
|
|
Kamata challenges some of the ascriptions given to Bo Yuan 帛遠 (aka Bo Fazu 白法祖) in the Taishō [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 T5; *Mahāprajāpatīparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大愛道般泥洹經 T144; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330; 菩薩逝經 Pusa shi jing T528; Xianzhe wu fude jing 賢者五福德經 T777; Kamata does not specify which are incorrect/correct --- IA]. Kamata states that [according to CSZJJ] Bo translated several texts, but no details about these works are unknown [Kamata is not clear here, but most likely referring to this CSZJJ passage: 常譯惟逮弟子本五部僧等三部經。又注首楞嚴經。又言。別譯數部小經值亂零失不知其名, T2145 (LV) 107c10-12 --- IA]. Dao’an does not list any works by him. Sengyou gives only a Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經. However, LDSBJ and other catalogues ascribe more than twenty titles to Bo, 帛遠, including the five ascribed to him in the Taishō.
Edit
|
299 |
Kamata challenges some of the ascriptions given to Bo Yuan 帛遠 (aka Bo Fazu 白法祖) in the Taisho [Mahaparinirvana-sutra 佛般泥洹經 T5; *Mahaprajapatiparinirvana-sutra 大愛道般泥洹經 T144; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330; 菩薩逝經 Pusa shi jing T528; Xianzhe wu fude jing 賢者五福德經 T777; Kamata does not specify which are incorrect/correct --- IA]. Kamata states that [according to CSZJJ] Bo translated several texts, but no details about these works are unknown [Kamata is not clear here, but most likely referring to this CSZJJ passage: 常譯惟逮弟子本五部僧等三部經。又注首楞嚴經。又言。別譯數部小經值亂零失不知其名, T2145 (LV) 107c10-12 --- IA]. Dao’an does not list any works by him. Sengyou gives only a Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經. However, LDSBJ and other catalogues ascribe more than twenty titles to Bo, 帛遠, including the five ascribed to him in the Taisho. 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 |
|
|
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 |
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). T2139; 老子化胡經 |