Source: Tomomatsu 1931

Tomomatsu, Entai. "Sûtrâlaṃkâra et Kalpanâmaṇḍitikâ. 1re Partie." Journal Asiatique 219 (1931): 135-174.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Tomomatsu points out that a Prātimokṣasūtra is ascribed to Kumārajīva in an anonymous postface known to Sengyou (in CSZJJ, 菩薩波羅提木叉後記 [T2145 (LV) 79b26-c8]), but that Sengyou himself does not attribute the same text to Kumārajīva (in his catalogue of Kumārajīva's translations, [T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27]). He points out further that though we might easily assume that this text has been lost, Zhisheng, in KYL, identified the second [sic?] fascicle [actually, Zhisheng states that the text is in two fascicles --- MR] of the Fangwang jing 梵網經 T1484 as a translation by Kumārajīva [presumably he refers to T2154 (LV) 606a21-22 --- MR]. He also points out that T1484 is preceded by two prefaces, one anonymous, and the other ascribed to Kumārajīva's disciple Sengzhao 僧肇. The anonymous preface is virtually identical with that found in CSZJJ. The Sengzhao preface is suspect for the fact that Sengyou does not mention it, though he is aware of several other Sengzhao prefaces. The Sengzhao preface also mentions the number of 50 translations by Kumārajīva, which means that if we regard the attribution of the preface to him, we have to accept that this tradition of so many translations was more or less contemporary to Kumārajīva himself. Even Huijiao, who accepts the attribution of T1484 to Kumārajīva, counts only 33 works in his corpus overall. Thus, Tomomatsu argues that the preface is not by Sengzhao, and should be regarded as anonymous. Tomomatsu points out that Huijiao was the author of a lost commentary on T1484, and that this was probably what motivated him to accept the attribution of the text to Kumārajīva, despite his otherwise cautious attitude to the corpus of Kumārajīva as a whole.

Edit

151-152

 Tomomatsu points out that a Pratimoksasutra is ascribed to Kumarajiva in an anonymous postface known to Sengyou (in CSZJJ, 菩薩波羅提木叉後記 [T2145 (LV) 79b26-c8]), but that Sengyou himself does not attribute the same text to Kumarajiva (in his catalogue of Kumarajiva's translations, [T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27]). He points out further that though we might easily assume that this text has been lost, Zhisheng, in KYL, identified the second [sic?] fascicle [actually, Zhisheng states that the text is in two fascicles --- MR] of the Fangwang jing 梵網經 T1484 as a translation by Kumarajiva [presumably he refers to T2154 (LV) 606a21-22 --- MR]. He also points out that T1484 is preceded by two prefaces, one anonymous, and the other ascribed to Kumarajiva's disciple Sengzhao 僧肇. The anonymous preface is virtually identical with that found in CSZJJ. The Sengzhao preface is suspect for the fact that Sengyou does not mention it, though he is aware of several other Sengzhao prefaces. The Sengzhao preface also mentions the number of 50 translations by Kumarajiva, which means that if we regard the attribution of the preface to him, we have to accept that this tradition of so many translations was more or less contemporary to Kumarajiva himself. Even Huijiao, who accepts the attribution of T1484 to Kumarajiva, counts only 33 works in his corpus overall. Thus, Tomomatsu argues that the preface is not by Sengzhao, and should be regarded as anonymous. Tomomatsu points out that Huijiao was the author of a lost commentary on T1484, and that this was probably what motivated him to accept the attribution of the text to Kumarajiva, despite his otherwise cautious attitude to the corpus of Kumarajiva as a whole. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1484; 梵網經 梵網經序

Tomomatsu points out that in CSZJJ, Sengyou himself ascribes 35 works in 294 juan to Kumārajīva [T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27] but at the same time, cites a postface to the *Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa that says he translated more than 50 works [菩薩波羅提木叉後記, T2145 (LV) 79b26-c8]. He points out that this means that Sengyou was clearly aware of traditions that ascribed a greater number of works to Kumārajīva than he did himself, and that his more conservative list of attributions is evidence of bibliographic rigour or scruples. Tomomatsu also points out that the fact that Sengyou reports this other tradition shows that in figures other than Sengyou himself, the tendency to inflate the number of attributions to Kumārajīva (and other figures like him) already existed in his time; further evidence in this same direction is the fact that Huijiao, in his GSZ, reports similar information for Kumārajīva himself. Tomomatsu points out that the postface in CSZJJ is almost verbatim identical with an anonymous preface carried in present T by T1484 (梵網經序); and that T1484 also carries a second preface, ascribed to Sengzhao 僧肇, which also reports the inflated total of 50 texts supposedly translated by Kumārajīva. Tomomatsu argues that the ascription of both the "Sengzhao" preface and T1484 itself are false [see separate entries]. Tomomatsu presents tables showing the inflation in various traditional catalogues over time of Kumārajīva's corpus and works ascribed to other major translators, going from Sengyou's catagues ["S"] to the CSZJJ biographies ["SBi"], through Huijiao's GSZ ["K"], to Fei Zhangfang (LDSBJ) ["H], to Jingmai ["Ko"], to Zhisheng's KYL ["Ky"] (see esp. 156; Tomomatsu's idiosynractic abbrevations, based in part upon Japanese pronunciations of the names of the bibliographers in question, are noted in square brackets in my list preceding). However, Tomomatsu states that apart from the so-called *Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa/T1484, we have no concrete information about what the other 15 works might have been, that elevated the total from Sengyou's 35 to 50.

Tomomatsu then brings the argument back to the *Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā (or so-called *Sūtrālaṃkāra) T201, suggesting that this work, too, might have been among the works added to Kumārajīva's credit around the same time, i.e. at or soon after the turn of the fifth-sixth centuries. On this basis, he suggests that T201 may not be due to Kumārajīva.

Edit

151-157

 Tomomatsu points out that in CSZJJ, Sengyou himself ascribes 35 works in 294 juan to Kumarajiva [T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27] but at the same time, cites a postface to the *Bodhisattvapratimoksa that says he translated more than 50 works [菩薩波羅提木叉後記, T2145 (LV) 79b26-c8]. He points out that this means that Sengyou was clearly aware of traditions that ascribed a greater number of works to Kumarajiva than he did himself, and that his more conservative list of attributions is evidence of bibliographic rigour or scruples. Tomomatsu also points out that the fact that Sengyou reports this other tradition shows that in figures other than Sengyou himself, the tendency to inflate the number of attributions to Kumarajiva (and other figures like him) already existed in his time; further evidence in this same direction is the fact that Huijiao, in his GSZ, reports similar information for Kumarajiva himself. Tomomatsu points out that the postface in CSZJJ is almost verbatim identical with an anonymous preface carried in present T by T1484 (梵網經序); and that T1484 also carries a second preface, ascribed to Sengzhao 僧肇, which also reports the inflated total of 50 texts supposedly translated by Kumarajiva. Tomomatsu argues that the ascription of both the "Sengzhao" preface and T1484 itself are false [see separate entries]. Tomomatsu presents tables showing the inflation in various traditional catalogues over time of Kumarajiva's corpus and works ascribed to other major translators, going from Sengyou's catagues ["S"] to the CSZJJ biographies ["SBi"], through Huijiao's GSZ ["K"], to Fei Zhangfang (LDSBJ) ["H], to Jingmai ["Ko"], to Zhisheng's KYL ["Ky"] (see esp. 156; Tomomatsu's idiosynractic abbrevations, based in part upon Japanese pronunciations of the names of the bibliographers in question, are noted in square brackets in my list preceding). However, Tomomatsu states that apart from the so-called *Bodhisattvapratimoksa/T1484, we have no concrete information about what the other 15 works might have been, that elevated the total from Sengyou's 35 to 50. Tomomatsu then brings the argument back to the *Kalpanamanditika (or so-called *Sutralamkara) T201, suggesting that this work, too, might have been among the works added to Kumarajiva's credit around the same time, i.e. at or soon after the turn of the fifth-sixth centuries. On this basis, he suggests that T201 may not be due to Kumarajiva. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0201; 大莊嚴論經