Source: Zürcher 1959/2007

Edit

362 n. 213

According to several “minor Buddhist bibliographies” both the Fangdeng fa hua jing 方等法華經and the Achu Focha zhu pusa xuecheng pin jing 阿閦佛剎諸菩薩學成品經 were translated by Zhi Daolin 支道林.

Edit

362 n. 213

Zürcher argues that the Laozi daquan pusa jing 老子大權菩薩經 is one of a series of “apocryphal” texts to extend the theory that Laozi, Confucius and sometimes Yan Hui and mythical Chinese Emperors were "Buddhist Saints". This theory, Zürcher suggests, was a response to the Daoist huahu 化胡 theory which claimed that the Buddha was in fact Laozi. This text is now lost, but, according to Zürcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries.

Edit

312-314

Zürcher argues that the Shi'eryou jing 十二游經 is one of a series of “apocryphal” texts to extend the theory that Laozi, Confucius and sometimes Yan Hui and mythical Chinese Emperors were "Buddhist Saints". This theory, Zürcher suggests, was a response to the Daoist huahu 化胡 theory which claimed that the Buddha was in fact Laozi. This text is now lost, but, according to Zürcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries.

Edit

312-314

Out of 30-176 works which have been attributed to An Shigao, Zürcher notes that only 34 were ascribed by Dao’an; 4 of these were attributed only hesitatingly, and of the remaining 30, only 19 have been preserved. Zürcher says that the following 19 texts “with some degree of probability" can be attributed to An Shigao and his school: 長阿含十報法經 T13, 本欲生經 T14, 一切流攝守因經 T31, 本相猗致經 T36, 是法非法經 T48, 漏分布經 T57, 普法義經 T98, 五陰譬喻經 T105, 轉法輪經 T109, 八正道經 T112, 七處三觀經 T150a, 九橫經 T150b, 舍利弗摩訶目連遊四衢經 T397, 大安般守意經 T602, 陰持入經 T603, 禪行法想經 T605, 道地經 T607, 法受塵經 T792, 阿毘曇五法行經 T1557.
.

Edit

33, 331 n. 82

According to Zürcher, the ascription of this text to An Shigao is not supported by the earliest external evidence. Zürcher says that Dao'an ascribes 34 texts in total to An Shigao. Setting aside T32 (see below), only 19 of the remaining 30 texts on Dao'an's list are extant: T13, T14, T31, T36, T48, T57, T98, T105, T109, T112, T150a, T150b, T397, T602, T603, T605, T607, T792, and T1557. This implies that other ascriptions to An Shigao in the modern (Taishō) canon are more open to question. This record lists all such texts: T16, T91, T92, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T1467, T1470, T1492, T2027.

[NOTE: Dao'an ascribed four texts to An Shigao only with hesitation. Three are no longer extant; the only extant text among them is T32. See separate entry on T32.]

[NOTE: In a later publication (Zürcher 1991) Zürcher came to the opinion that T1508 should also be ascribed to An Shigao---JN/MR.]

Edit

33, 331 n. 82

Zürcher notes that 四諦經 T32 is the only surviving member of a set of four texts that Dao’an only “hesitatingly” attributed to An Shigao. On these grounds, Zürcher regards this attribution as somewhat less reliable than those of the other nineteen extant texts ascribed to An Shigao by Dao'an. He adds that the Kaiyuan SJL XIII 616.2.26 states that “the two versions of the Anban shouyi jing listed by Dao’an and Sengyou actually belonged to the same text, one consisting of the same chapter of the other one.” (c.f. Ōtani Seishin, “An Seikō no yakkyō ni tsuite” Tōyōgakuhō XIII, 1924, pp. 546-583.

Edit

331 n. 82

According to Zürcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived: T54, T68, T76, T87, T169, T185, T198, T225, T281, T362, T474, T493, T532, T533, T556, T557, T559, T581, T632, T708, T735, T790, T1011. However, Zürcher notes that T68 “is not mentioned by Dao’an.” This entry includes all twenty-three texts accepted by Zürcher as genuine Zhi Qian translations.

Edit

50, 336 n. 137

Zürcher states that in the list of texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Dao'an, 29 bear dates [I actually count 28; further, one, the 五蓋疑結失行經, has a note saying that Dao'an did not think it looked like a Dharmarakṣa text, and so I also exclude it---MR]. This note lists the remaining 27. Zürcher suggests that this may be evidence that "in these cases [Dao'an's] attribution was based upon early dated colophons". [This may mean that these attributions can be regarded as some of the strongest in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, on external grounds.]

Edit

66

Zürcher cites Henri Maspero who has discovered an “unmistakable correspondence” between the Buddha's life story in the Taizi ruiying benqi jing 太子瑞應本起經 T185 and that of the Mouzi li huo [lun ] 牟子理惑 (preserved in Hong ming ji 弘明集 T2102). Maspero, “Le songe et l'ambassade de l'empereur Ming: étude critique des sources”, BEFEO X, 1901, pp. 95-130.

Zürcher later adds that in describing the Buddha's birth, Zhi Qian's text uses the words 夜明 ("the night was bright"). Zürcher identifies this as a likely allusion to a Zuo zhuan 左傳 comment on the Chun qiu 春秋, referring to extraordinary signs observed in the sky in 686 BCE. This Zuo zhuan passage was used by Chinese Buddhist apologists to claim that the auspicious signs that attended the birth of the Buddha had been observed as far away as China, and there was therefore evidence for the veracity of the Buddhist tradition in the Chinese classics; and Zürcher reads this passage as Zhi Qian's attempt to bring this echo into his readers' minds.

Edit

13, 272

This is the sole work ascribed to *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽. Is this the same text mentioned as an apocryphon by Zürcher, 313?

Edit

313

Zürcher notes that the (Jiu) Za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 ascribed to Kang Senghui is not mentioned in any of the earliest bibliographies.

Edit

53

Zürcher argues that the Daoxing (bore) jing 道行般若經 (Aṣṭasāhaśrikā prajñāpāramitā) T224 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokakṣema was more than “hypothetical” (the second being T417/418) on the basis of its record in CSZJJ II, an anonymous colophon (ib. VII 47.3.4 sqq.), and Dao’an’s preface to his commentary on the Daoxing jing. Dao’an recorded that T224 was based on a manuscript brought to Luoyang by Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛. Zürcher confirms Dao’an’s record by arguing that the use of ji 齎 "bring" implies that the text was translated from a manuscript rather than an oral recitation. Zürcher adds that daoxing, “the practice of the way,” is a translation of Sarvākarajñatācarya, the name of the first chapter. He also notes that the earliest catalogues “mention another Han time version of the Aṣṭsahāśrikā [ascribed to *Lokakṣema or Zhu Shuofo] … which among students of Buddhist bibliography has given rise to the wildest speculations.” He cites Sakaino Kōyō, as summarised by Matsumoto Tokumyo, Die Prajñāpāramitā-literatur, 1932, pp. 18-19.

Edit

35, 332 n. 92

One of the most important texts translated by Dharmarakṣa is the Zheng fahua jing 正法華經 T263 [Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra]. According to Zürcher, this is the first full translation of the text into Chinese. (The only known earlier version is the anonymous and incomplete Satanfentuoli jing 薩曇分陀利經 T265.) Zürcher states that the translation was completed in three weeks (“September 15-October 6, 286”) at Chang’an. It is also said that Dharmarakṣa recited the translation while holding the Indic manuscript in his hands, the first translator for whom such a feat is recorded, and a testament to his language abilities. Dharmarakṣa’s translation was revised twice, first by the Indian monk Zhu Li 竺力 with the Korean upāsaka Bo Yuanxin 帛元信, and later in March 288. Zürcher suggests that the original manuscript was stored at Chang’an and still existed at the beginning of the seventh century, for which he refers to the preface to Jñānagupta’s edition of the Lotus-sūtra 添品妙法蓮華經 T264.

Edit

69, 345 n. 248

An Xuan 安玄 translated together with Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 the Fajing jing 法鏡經 T322 (Ugradattaparipṛcchā); “The attribution is confirmed by Kang Senghui (mid. third century).” Zürcher considers this attribution “somewhat surprising” because this sūtra’s account of the “career of a Bodhisattva” would appear to belong to the Mahāyāna.

Edit

34

Zürcher argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing (Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra) T417/418 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokakṣema was more than “hypothetical” (the second being T224) on the basis of its mention in the CSZJJ II and an anonymous colophon (ib. VII 48.3.9 sqq.). Zürcher adds that the textual origins of this scripture are complicated, and scholars who have studied the text have reached very different opinions. Zürcher cites Hayashiya Tomojirō (Kyōroku-kenkyū, pp. 544-578) who “discusses the opinions of former specialists” such as Sakaino Kōyō and Mochizuki Shinkō; after a careful comparison of the two versions, Hayashiya concludes that the version in three juan (T418) is the original translation by *Lokakṣema, the one in one juan (T417) being “an abstract made from the earlier more extensive text.” He adds that besides these two texts, there is another “short and archaic version” (Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經T419) which "probably dates from Han times."

Edit

35, 332-333 n. 95

Zürcher suggests that the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 was translated by Zhi Qian, rather than Dharmarakṣa. He notes that the Shenri jing is a condensed and developed version of the Yueguang tongzhi jing 月光童子經 T534, which is “unanimously ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.” Zürcher notes that the early catalogues (CSZJJ II 6.3.26; T2146 ch. I p. 115.3.22 etc.) discuss a text titled Yueming tongzi jing, said to be translated by Zhi Qian; Zürcher sees Yueming tongzi jing as "clearly a variant title" of the Shenri jing. Furthermore, he says, it is unlikely that Dharmarakṣa translated the same text twice. The Shenri jing contains a translator’s “or editor’s” note which reads: “in the language of Han this means yueguang tongzhi, ‘the boy (named) Moon-light.’” Zürcher adds that the tradition in Buddhist texts to refer to the Chinese language as “the language of (the reigning dynasty) X”, which would suggest that the text was translated under the Han, whereas Dharmarakṣa’s translating period fell roughly under the western Jin. However, Zürcher later retracted his argument in: Zürcher, Erik. “Prince Moonlight: Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” T'oung-pao 68 (1982): 1–59.

Edit

315 and esp. 438-439 n. 139; 437-438 n. 130

Zürcher suggests that the attribution of the 伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 (Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā) T624 to *Lokakṣema is strongly supported by Zhi Mindu’s attribution in his preface (ca. 300AD) to a “synoptic edition” of four versions of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴三昧經. Zürcher adds that Sengyou also attributes this text to Lokakṣema, with the note that the text is “now lost.” The 伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 also appears in Dao’an’s catalogue among the anonymous translations. Zürcher notes that Hayashiya (Kyōroku kenkyū pp. 625-627) argues in favour of this attribution to *Lokakṣema, but acknowledges that some scholars have rejected it, specifically Sakaino Kōyō, Shina-bukkyōshi kōwa, Tōkyō 1927, vol. I pp. 44-45.

Edit

35, 332 n. 94, 333 n. 96

Zürcher states that Shishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 it is very old, because it is quoted in Xiang Kai's memorial of 166 AD. Nonetheless, the authenticity of the text has been repeatedly questioned and it remains under discussion whether it is a Chinese composition or derived from a Sanskrit text. For this he cites Liang Qichao, op cit. vol. 1, pp. 5-7; Tokigawa Daiiō in “Kan-mei kyūhō-setsu no kenkyū,” Tōyōgakuhō X, 1920, pp 25-41 and in Yakkyō sōroku, pp. 481-485; Mochizuki Shinkō in Bukkyō daijiten p. 1811.1; Sakaino in Shina bukkyō seishi p. 57. Zürcher goes on to note that, stylistically, the Shishi'er zhang jing appears to be modelled on the Xiaojing or the Daode jing. The Shishi'er zhang jing’s similarity to the Xiaojing is discussed in LDSBJ T2034 (ch. IV p. 49.3) and Liang Qichao (loc. cit.) notices its similarities to the Daode jing. Zürcher also draws comparison to the style of Lunyu, due to the text’s “short independent paragraphs” which tend to begin “The Buddha said…” He also notes that Tang Yongtong (op. cit. p. 31.) has noted that early sources (“the ‘preface’ in CSZJJ VI 42.3.22”) referred to it as “the forty-two sections of (=extracted from?) Buddhist sūtras” and “the forty-two sections of emperor Xiaoming.” Referring to Liang Qichao, "op. cit."(??), vol. I, 5–7. Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. “Kanmei kyū hō setsu no kenkyū.” 漢明求法説の研究. Tōyō gakuhō 10 (1920): 25–41. Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定, Yakkyō sōroku 訳経総録, 481–485. Mochizuki Shinko 望月信亨 in Bukkyo daijiten p. 1811.1. Sakaino in Shina bukkyo seishi p. 57.

Edit

29-30

Zürcher claims that the traditional attribution of the Guanding jing 灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘咒經 (*Mahābhiśeka-mantra?) T1331 to Śrīmitra is “almost certainly wrong.” He says that the text does not feature in the earliest catalogues; the earliest attributions of this text to Śrīmitra are in the Lidai sanbao ji (597) and the Da Tang neidan lu (664) for which both bibliographies refer to a lost fifth century catalogue, the Jinshi zalu 晉世雜錄. Zürcher adds that the text is not mentioned in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu (594) nor Sengyou’s Chu sanzang ji ji (ca. 515). These two bibliographies do discuss a “Guanding jing in two juans” which they classify among the “suspected scriptures” and add that the text was fabricated by Huijian 慧簡 in 457. Zürcher suggests that we maintain a “certain reserve” about the dating of this Guanding jing.

Edit

316-317, 354 n. 99.

The Ayu wang zhuan 阿育王傳 in seven juan (Aśokarājāvadāna) tells the "legendarized" history of Aśoka. According to late bibliographic sources, the text was translated by An Faqin 安法欽 in 306. However, Zürcher notes that An Faqin is not discussed by either Dao’an or Sengyou in the Gaoseng zhuan or the bibliographical chapters of the CSZJJ. Zürcher notes that Sengyou mentions a text with a similar name, the Da Ayu wang jing 大阿育王經, consisting of one juan, which Dao’an classed among “suspected” scriptures. The Ayu wang juan is attributed to An Faqin in DTNDL 大唐內典錄 T2149, which refers to Zhu Daozu’s 竺道祖 early fifth century catalogue, the Jinshi zalu 晉世雜錄. The only other ascription to An Faqin in the canon is 道神足無極變化經 T816.

Edit

70, 277, 423 n. 163

According to Zürcher, Dao’an mentions a work ascribed to Kang Senghui, which he calls the "Wupin 吳品 in five juan and ten sections (pin)”. Zürcher suggests this text may have been part of the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā; but it was lost by the time of Sengyou.

Edit

53

Zürcher argues that the Xumi xiangtu shan jing 須彌像圖山經 is one of a series of “apocryphal” texts to extend the theory that Laozi, Confucius and sometimes Yan Hui and mythical Chinese Emperors were "Buddhist Saints". This theory, Zürcher suggests, was a response to the Daoist huahu 化胡 theory which claimed that the Buddha was in fact Laozi. This text is now lost, but, according to Zürcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries.

Edit

312-314

According to Zürcher, the Mouzi li huo [lun ] 牟子理惑 (preserved in Hong ming ji 弘明集 T2102) is a “Chinese Buddhist apology” and is likely to be a “polemic treatise.” Its preface states that it was composed at the end of the second century by a Chinese scholar official in the South (Cangwu in Jiaozhou). Zürcher notes that the early history is almost completely obscure; it is neither quoted nor mentioned anywhere before Lu Cheng included it in his Falun (compiled after 465). Historically, scholars have labelled it a “spurious work”, including Liang Qichao, who saw the text as “a forgery made by someone of the Eastern Jin or Liu-Song period;” Tokiwa Daijō, who opined that “the treatise has been composed by the monk Huitong 慧通 (ca 426-ca. 478);” and Hu Yinglin 胡應麟 (b. 1551), who wrote in his Sibu zhengwei that it was a “forgery made by a scholar of the Six Dynasties, the Jin or the Song.” However, Zürcher notes that “far more” scholars have identified this text as genuine. Thus Zürcher admits that the authenticity of the text is a complicated problem, and scholars have convincingly argued for both conclusions. He cites particularly Hu Shi, Tang Yongtong, Sun Yirang, Yu Jiaxi and Henri Maspero, who discovered a correspondence between the story of the Buddha’s life in the Mouzi, and that of the Taizi ruiying benqi jing (T185, trsl. in 222-229). Pelliot pleads for the authenticity of the text on the basis of the historical information contained in the preface, which agrees with that of the Hou-Han shu and the Sanguo zhi. However, Zürcher argues this is not conclusive evidence, and Pelliot’s arguments only hold for “clumsy forgeries”. There is no reason that a scholar could not have formed a narrative to agree with the Hou-Han shu and Sanguo zhi. However, he concludes that “the final verdict on its authenticity should be left to other investigators.”

Edit

13-14