Source: Silk 1994

Silk, Jonathan Alan. “The Origins and History of the Mahāratnakūṭa Tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhism with a Study of the Ratnarāśisūtra and Related Materials.” PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1994.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

In KYL, Zhisheng discussed the fact that three translations had been reported of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka, by Dharmarakṣa, Daogong 道龔, and *Dharmakṣema. Zhisheng reported a tradition that Daogong had in fact revised and arranged the first translation, by Dharmarakṣa; but Zhisheng's own opinion was that the extant text was in fact probably the *Dharmakṣema version.

KYL: 悲華經十卷(第三出與法護閑居經及大悲分陀利曇無讖悲華經等同本房云見古錄似是先譯龔更刪改今疑即無讖出者是), T2154:55.519b20-21.

[Note: This may mean that the present ascription of T157 in T derives from this judgement of Zhisheng --- MR.]

Edit

669

 In KYL, Zhisheng discussed the fact that three translations had been reported of the Karunapundarika, by Dharmaraksa, Daogong 道龔, and *Dharmaksema. Zhisheng reported a tradition that Daogong had in fact revised and arranged the first translation, by Dharmaraksa; but Zhisheng's own opinion was that the extant text was in fact probably the *Dharmaksema version. KYL: 悲華經十卷(第三出與法護閑居經及大悲分陀利曇無讖悲華經等同本房云見古錄似是先譯龔更刪改今疑即無讖出者是), T2154:55.519b20-21. [Note: This may mean that the present ascription of T157 in T derives from this judgement of Zhisheng --- MR.] Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karunapundarika T0157; 悲華經

Silk surveys the treatment of the text/title 寶梁聚 in the catalogues. It is first reported in CSZJJ, in two juan, where it is already ascribed to Daogong. This attribution is followed by Fajing, LDSBJ, Yancong, DTNDL, GJYJTJ, DZKZM, and KYL. Silk himself concludes "that the Ratnaraśi [i.e. T310(44)] was translated by a monk named Daogong, in Liangzhou, about 700 km. ESE of Dunhuang on the main road, in modern day Gansu province, right at the end of the fourth or at the very beginning of the fifth century." He notes further that "we know next to nothing" about this Daogong.

Silk gives quite a full list of quotations of T310(44) in later works (672 ff.), to which he adds the treatment of the work in lexical compilations such as the Yiqie jing yin yi, a loose "quotation" in Zhiyi's Mohe zhi guan. He lists and discusses portions that were preserved in Skt in the Śikṣāsamuccaya and Sūtrasamuccaya (679-680, 689-703), including portions not found in extant versions of the text. Silk further discusses a single manuscript leaf in the Hoernle collection, which he transcribes and translates (681-683). He discusses a very interesting example of a probable mistake in the Chinese which was probably based upon a misreading of Middle Indic vajja as *vajra instead of for *vadya, and other similar examples, suggesting that the translators were working from a Prakrit rather than a Sanskrit text (referring to the work of Karashima 1992 on similar problems in Dharmarakṣa's Lotus T263).

Note that Silk also gives a critical edition of the Chinese of T310(44) (550-635), and edition of the Tibetan (387-549), and an English translation (257-385).

Edit

666-671

 Silk surveys the treatment of the text/title 寶梁聚 in the catalogues. It is first reported in CSZJJ, in two juan, where it is already ascribed to Daogong. This attribution is followed by Fajing, LDSBJ, Yancong, DTNDL, GJYJTJ, DZKZM, and KYL. Silk himself concludes "that the Ratnarasi [i.e. T310(44)] was translated by a monk named Daogong, in Liangzhou, about 700 km. ESE of Dunhuang on the main road, in modern day Gansu province, right at the end of the fourth or at the very beginning of the fifth century." He notes further that "we know next to nothing" about this Daogong. Silk gives quite a full list of quotations of T310(44) in later works (672 ff.), to which he adds the treatment of the work in lexical compilations such as the Yiqie jing yin yi, a loose "quotation" in Zhiyi's Mohe zhi guan. He lists and discusses portions that were preserved in Skt in the Siksasamuccaya and Sutrasamuccaya (679-680, 689-703), including portions not found in extant versions of the text. Silk further discusses a single manuscript leaf in the Hoernle collection, which he transcribes and translates (681-683). He discusses a very interesting example of a probable mistake in the Chinese which was probably based upon a misreading of Middle Indic vajja as *vajra instead of for *vadya, and other similar examples, suggesting that the translators were working from a Prakrit rather than a Sanskrit text (referring to the work of Karashima 1992 on similar problems in Dharmaraksa's Lotus T263). Note that Silk also gives a critical edition of the Chinese of T310(44) (550-635), and edition of the Tibetan (387-549), and an English translation (257-385). Daogong 道龔 *Ratnarasi-sutra 寶梁聚會 T310(44)

Silk states briefly, referring to KYL, Tokiwa, Yamada, and Hayashiya, that "the evidence seems to suggest that the attribution [of a Bei hua jing to Daogong] is probably false, and that the 'lost' Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka translation of Daogong is rather to be identified wit the extant translation attributed to his more famous contemporary Dharmakṣema.

Edit

670

 Silk states briefly, referring to KYL, Tokiwa, Yamada, and Hayashiya, that "the evidence seems to suggest that the attribution [of a Bei hua jing to Daogong] is probably false, and that the 'lost' Karunapundarika translation of Daogong is rather to be identified wit the extant translation attributed to his more famous contemporary Dharmaksema. Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karunapundarika T0157; 悲華經