|
|
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 |
This is the sole work ascribed to *Kalodaka 迦留陀伽. Is this the same text mentioned as an apocryphon by Zurcher, 313?
T0195; Shi'er you jing 十二由經; 佛說十二遊經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher 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, Zurcher 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 Zurcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries. Xumi xiangtu shan jing 須彌像圖山經 |
|
|
Zürcher argues that the Kongji suowen jing 空寂所問經 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 |
Zurcher argues that the Kongji suowen jing 空寂所問經 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, Zurcher 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 Zurcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries. Kongji suowen jing 空寂所問經 |
|
|
"Dao’an only speaks about four works translated in the period 290-360 by Faju 法炬, a monk of unknown origin, and about two others translated by Faju together with the śramaṇa Fali 法立.... Later bibliographies have made Faju...the target of...wild attributions: no less than 132 works figure under his name in the late sixth century [LDSBJ], which number is reduced to 40 in the somewhat more critical [KYL]" (70).
[MR: In fact, the passage in CSZJJ referred to in Zürcher's note (345 n. 254) shows that Zürcher has made an error here; the two texts supposedly translated with Faju were *among* the four translated by Fali (右四部。凡十二卷。晉惠懷時。沙門法炬譯出。其法句喻福田二經。炬與沙門法立共譯出; T2145:55.9c19-10a3), reducing the total number of ascriptions supported by this evidence even further. The four texts listed are:
樓炭經 (prob. = *Lokasthāna[?] 大樓炭經 T23)
大方等如來藏經 (lost: cf. Zimmermann, Buddha Within [2002]: 69)
法句本末經/法句喻經/法句譬經 (= T211)
福田經/諸德福田經 (T683)
The main significance of Zürcher's remark is negative---the remaining ascriptions to Faju and Fali in the modern (Taishō) canon should be regarded as weaker and more open to suspicion. This record lists all such texts: T33, T34, T39, T49, T55, T64, T65, T70, T111, T113, T119, T122, T133, T178, T215, T332, T500, T501, T502, T503, T508, T509, T695, T739. However, we should also note that Zürcher adds:]
"Sengyou states that Fali made a great number of translations which were lost during the troubles of the yongjia era (307-313) before they had been copied and put into circulation, a remark which is repeated by Huijiao in his Gaoseng zhuan....It may...have happened that some works were rediscovered at a rather later date, but Sengyou's silence about Faju remains puzzling. Dao'an's catalouge, our invaluable guide for the early period, gives out around 300 AD; although Dao'an compiled it at Xiangyang in 374 and probably added new entries until his death in 385, he did not include any works translated after the end of the Western Jin."
Edit
|
70, 345 n. 254 |
"Dao’an only speaks about four works translated in the period 290-360 by Faju 法炬, a monk of unknown origin, and about two others translated by Faju together with the sramana Fali 法立.... Later bibliographies have made Faju...the target of...wild attributions: no less than 132 works figure under his name in the late sixth century [LDSBJ], which number is reduced to 40 in the somewhat more critical [KYL]" (70).
[MR: In fact, the passage in CSZJJ referred to in Zurcher's note (345 n. 254) shows that Zurcher has made an error here; the two texts supposedly translated with Faju were *among* the four translated by Fali (右四部。凡十二卷。晉惠懷時。沙門法炬譯出。其法句喻福田二經。炬與沙門法立共譯出; T2145:55.9c19-10a3), reducing the total number of ascriptions supported by this evidence even further. The four texts listed are:
樓炭經 (prob. = *Lokasthana[?] 大樓炭經 T23)
大方等如來藏經 (lost: cf. Zimmermann, Buddha Within [2002]: 69)
法句本末經/法句喻經/法句譬經 (= T211)
福田經/諸德福田經 (T683)
The main significance of Zurcher's remark is negative---the remaining ascriptions to Faju and Fali in the modern (Taisho) canon should be regarded as weaker and more open to suspicion. This record lists all such texts: T33, T34, T39, T49, T55, T64, T65, T70, T111, T113, T119, T122, T133, T178, T215, T332, T500, T501, T502, T503, T508, T509, T695, T739. However, we should also note that Zurcher adds:]
"Sengyou states that Fali made a great number of translations which were lost during the troubles of the yongjia era (307-313) before they had been copied and put into circulation, a remark which is repeated by Huijiao in his Gaoseng zhuan....It may...have happened that some works were rediscovered at a rather later date, but Sengyou's silence about Faju remains puzzling. Dao'an's catalouge, our invaluable guide for the early period, gives out around 300 AD; although Dao'an compiled it at Xiangyang in 374 and probably added new entries until his death in 385, he did not include any works translated after the end of the Western Jin." T0033; 恒水經; Heng shui jing 恒水經 T0034; 法海經 T0039; *Murdhagata-sutra?; *Murdata-sutra?; 頂生王故事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0049; 求欲經 T0055; 苦陰因事經 T0064; 瞻波比丘經; 瞻婆比丘經 T0065; 伏婬經 T0070; 數經 T0111; 佛說相應相可經 T0113; 佛說難提釋經 T0119; 佛說鴦崛髻經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0122; 佛說波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; 波耶匿王經, 波斯匿王經, 波斯匿王喪母經, 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0133; 頻毘娑羅王詣佛供養經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0178; 前世三轉經 T0215; 群牛譬經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0332; 佛說優填王經 T0500; Luoyun ren jing 羅雲忍經; Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經; Ren ru jing 忍辱經; 羅云忍辱經 T0501; Shahe biqiu jing 沙曷比丘經; 佛說沙曷比丘功德經 T0502; 佛為年少比丘說正事經 T0503; 比丘避女惡名欲自殺經 T0508; 阿闍世王問五逆經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0509; 阿闍世王授決經 T0695; 佛說灌洗佛形像經 T0739; 佛說慢法經 |
|
|
Mili 覓歷, a disciple of *Śrī[mitra], is said to have "compiled or concoted a vinaya for nuns which was attacked as heretical by the masters Zhi Dun 支遁 and Zhu Fatai 竺法汰 (320-387). Zürcher refers to CSZJJ and Fajing. (CSZJJ: 卷中問尼受大戒法後記云。此土無大比丘尼戒文[var.乏SYM]。斯一部僧法久矣。吳土雖有五百戒比丘尼。而戒是覓歷所出尋之殊。不似聖人所制法。汱[var.汰SYM]道林聲鼓而正之。可謂匡法之棟梁也; T2145:55.81b25-29.)
Edit
|
103, 354 n. 101
|
Mili 覓歷, a disciple of *Sri[mitra], is said to have "compiled or concoted a vinaya for nuns which was attacked as heretical by the masters Zhi Dun 支遁 and Zhu Fatai 竺法汰 (320-387). Zurcher refers to CSZJJ and Fajing. (CSZJJ: 卷中問尼受大戒法後記云。此土無大比丘尼戒文[var.乏SYM]。斯一部僧法久矣。吳土雖有五百戒比丘尼。而戒是覓歷所出尋之殊。不似聖人所制法。汱[var.汰SYM]道林聲鼓而正之。可謂匡法之棟梁也; T2145:55.81b25-29.) Mili 覓歷 比丘尼戒, *Bhiksuni-vinaya(?) |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing (Pratyutpannabuddhasamukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra) T417/418 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokaksema 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.). Zurcher adds that the textual origins of this scripture are complicated, and scholars who have studied the text have reached very different opinions. Zurcher cites Hayashiya Tomojiro (Kyoroku-kenkyu, pp. 544-578) who “discusses the opinions of former specialists” such as Sakaino Koyo and Mochizuki Shinko; after a careful comparison of the two versions, Hayashiya concludes that the version in three juan (T418) is the original translation by *Lokaksema, 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." *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0418; 般舟三昧經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher 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. T0206; 舊雜譬喻經 |
|
|
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 |
The Ayu wang zhuan 阿育王傳 in seven juan (Asokarajavadana) tells the "legendarized" history of Asoka. According to late bibliographic sources, the text was translated by An Faqin 安法欽 in 306. However, Zurcher notes that An Faqin is not discussed by either Dao’an or Sengyou in the Gaoseng zhuan or the bibliographical chapters of the CSZJJ. Zurcher 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. T2042; 阿育王傳 |
|
|
Zürcher argues that the Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419 is a “short and archaic version” of T417-T418, which "probably dates from Han times." He cites Hayashiya Tomojirō (Kyōroku-kenkyū, pp. 544-578)
Edit
|
332-333 n. 95 |
Zurcher argues that the Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419 is a “short and archaic version” of T417-T418, which "probably dates from Han times." He cites Hayashiya Tomojiro (Kyoroku-kenkyu, pp. 544-578) T0419; 跋陀菩薩經; 拔陀菩薩經; 颰披陀菩薩經; 拔陂菩薩經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher suggests that the attribution of the 伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 (Drumakinnararajapariprccha) T624 to *Lokaksema is strongly supported by Zhi Mindu’s attribution in his preface (ca. 300AD) to a “synoptic edition” of four versions of the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 首楞嚴三昧經. Zurcher adds that Sengyou also attributes this text to Lokaksema, 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. Zurcher notes that Hayashiya (Kyoroku kenkyu pp. 625-627) argues in favour of this attribution to *Lokaksema, but acknowledges that some scholars have rejected it, specifically Sakaino Koyo, Shina-bukkyoshi kowa, Tokyo 1927, vol. I pp. 44-45. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 |
|
|
Zürcher argues that the attribution of the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 (Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodana) T626 is strongly supported by the preface written by Zhi Mindu (ca. 300AD) to a “synoptic edition” of four versions of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴三昧經.
Edit
|
35, 332 n. 94. |
Zurcher argues that the attribution of the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 (Ajatasatrukaukrtyavinodana) T626 is strongly supported by the preface written by Zhi Mindu (ca. 300AD) to a “synoptic edition” of four versions of the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 首楞嚴三昧經. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0626; 佛說阿闍世王經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher suggests that the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 was translated by Zhi Qian, rather than Dharmaraksa. 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 Dharmaraksa.” Zurcher 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; Zurcher sees Yueming tongzi jing as "clearly a variant title" of the Shenri jing. Furthermore, he says, it is unlikely that Dharmaraksa 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.’” Zurcher 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 Dharmaraksa’s translating period fell roughly under the western Jin. However, Zurcher later retracted his argument in: Zurcher, Erik. “Prince Moonlight: Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” T'oung-pao 68 (1982): 1–59. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經 |
|
|
The Satanfentuoli jing 薩曇分陀利經 T265 is, as far as we know, the only extant translation of the Lotus-sūtra from before Dharmarakṣa’s time. The Satanfentuoli jing is anonymous and incomplete; according to Zürcher, it corresponds to the 11th parivarta of the Sanskrit version, or sections 10-12 of Dharmarakṣa’s and Kumārajīva’s versions. Zürcher suggests that this translation dates from the “late Han or Sanguo times” on the basis of the translator’s glosses.
Edit
|
344-345 n. 246 |
The Satanfentuoli jing 薩曇分陀利經 T265 is, as far as we know, the only extant translation of the Lotus-sutra from before Dharmaraksa’s time. The Satanfentuoli jing is anonymous and incomplete; according to Zurcher, it corresponds to the 11th parivarta of the Sanskrit version, or sections 10-12 of Dharmaraksa’s and Kumarajiva’s versions. Zurcher suggests that this translation dates from the “late Han or Sanguo times” on the basis of the translator’s glosses. T0265; 薩曇分陀利經 |
|
|
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 |
Out of 30-176 works which have been attributed to An Shigao, Zurcher 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. Zurcher 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.
.
An Shigao, 安世高 T0013; 長阿含十報法經; Shi bao jing 十報經 T0031; 一切流攝守因經; 流攝經 T0036; 本相猗致經 T0048; 是法非法經 T0057; 漏分布經 T0098; 普法義經 T0105; 五陰譬喻經; 河中大聚沫經 T0109; 佛說轉法輪經 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 T0379; 四童子三昧經 T0605; 禪行法想經 T0792; 佛說法受塵經 T1557; 阿毘曇五法行經 |
|
|
Zürcher argues that the Xumi siyu jing 須彌四域經 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 |
Zurcher argues that the Xumi siyu jing 須彌四域經 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, Zurcher 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 Zurcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries. Xumi siyu jing 須彌四域經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Zurcher, Dao’an mentions a work ascribed to Kang Senghui, which he calls the "Wupin 吳品 in five juan and ten sections (pin)”. Zurcher suggests this text may have been part of the Astasahasrikaprajnaparamita; but it was lost by the time of Sengyou. Wupin 吳品; Wu pin jing 呉品經 |
|
|
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 |
An Xuan 安玄 translated together with Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 the Fajing jing 法鏡經 T322 (Ugradattapariprccha); “The attribution is confirmed by Kang Senghui (mid. third century).” Zurcher considers this attribution “somewhat surprising” because this sutra’s account of the “career of a Bodhisattva” would appear to belong to the Mahayana. T0322; Fa jing jing; 法鏡經 |
|
|
Zürcher writes that there is no mention of the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184 in Sengyou’s catalogue, either on his own authority of that of Dao’an. However, Zürcher considers this to be Sengyou’s mistake, given that all later catalogues refer to Dao’an’s bibliography for this sūtra. [Zürcher is mistaken: see :修行本起經二卷安公言南方近出直益小本起耳舊録有宿行本起疑即此經, T2145:55.16c18; JN/MR.]
Edit
|
333 n. 99 |
Zurcher writes that there is no mention of the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184 in Sengyou’s catalogue, either on his own authority of that of Dao’an. However, Zurcher considers this to be Sengyou’s mistake, given that all later catalogues refer to Dao’an’s bibliography for this sutra. [Zurcher is mistaken: see :修行本起經二卷安公言南方近出直益小本起耳舊録有宿行本起疑即此經, T2145:55.16c18; JN/MR.] T0184; 修行本起經 |
|
|
Zürcher notes that the “Commentary on the Yinchiru jing” 陰持入經註 T1694 is attributed to “Master Chen” 陳氏 in the canon, yet the author refers to himself as Mi 密 in the preface. Many of the glosses are headed by the phrase “the Master says”; according to Zürcher, nothing is known of Mi 密 or his master.
Edit
|
54 |
Zurcher notes that the “Commentary on the Yinchiru jing” 陰持入經註 T1694 is attributed to “Master Chen” 陳氏 in the canon, yet the author refers to himself as Mi 密 in the preface. Many of the glosses are headed by the phrase “the Master says”; according to Zurcher, nothing is known of Mi 密 or his master. T1694; 陰持入經註 |
|
|
According to Zürcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived. This entry lists texts which are ascribed to Zhi Qian in the present Taishō, yet do not appear among Sengyou’s attributions.
Edit
|
50, 336 n. 137 |
According to Zurcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived. This entry lists texts which are ascribed to Zhi Qian in the present Taisho, yet do not appear among Sengyou’s attributions. T0020; 阿拔經; Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿跋經; 阿拔摩納經; Ambattha-sutra; 佛開解梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿颰經 T0021; 梵網六十二見經 T0027; 七智經; 七知經 T0059; 諸法本經 T0067; Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 弊魔試目連經 T0107; 自守亦不自守經; 佛說不自守意經 T0128; 須摩提女經 T0153; 菩薩本緣經 T0181; 九色鹿經 T0200; 撰集百緣經 T0214; 猘狗經 Zhi gou jing; Shuo/li(?) gou nie zhu jing 𤢴狗嚙主經; 𤢴狗齧王經 Shuo/li(?) gou nie wang jing T0427; 佛說八吉祥神呪經 T0507; 佛說未生冤經; 未生怨經 T0511; 佛說蓱沙王五願經; 弗迦沙王經; 萍沙王五願經 T0530; 佛說須摩提長者經 T0531; 佛說長者音悅經 T0555; 五母子經 T0582; 佛說孫多耶致經; *Sundarika-sutra; 梵志孫陀耶致經 T0583; 佛說黑氏梵志經 T0597; 龍王兄弟經 T0631; 佛說法律三昧經 T0713; 聞城譬經; 貝多樹下思惟十二因緣經 T0760; Weiri za na jing; Weiyue nan jing 惟曰難經; 惟日雜難經; Weiyueza nan jing 惟曰雜難經, Weiyueza nan jing 惟越雜難經 T0767; 佛說三品弟子經; Dizi xue you san bei jing 弟子學有三輩經 T0808; 佛說犢子經 T1300; *Matangi-sutra, *Sardulakarnavadana; 摩登伽經 T1351; 佛說持句神呪經 T1356; 佛說華積陀羅尼神呪經 T1477; Jie xiaofu 戒消伏; 佛說戒消災經 |
|
|
Zürcher claims that the terminology and style of the anonymous glosses contained in the first chapter of Zhi Qian’s Da mingdu jing 大明度經 T225 show that this author was either Chinese or a “thoroughly sinicized foreigner.”
Edit
|
54 |
Zurcher claims that the terminology and style of the anonymous glosses contained in the first chapter of Zhi Qian’s Da mingdu jing 大明度經 T225 show that this author was either Chinese or a “thoroughly sinicized foreigner.” T0225; 大明度經 |
|
|
Zürcher says that 中本起經 T196 shows “traces of later redaction in the inserted translations of Indian proper names.” He thinks that these could be later additions, but he notes that in two cases the text continues to regularly use the Chinese translation terms after their first occurrences in the glosses. [This would presumably mean either that the glosses were in fact integral to the initial translation of the text, and not added later; or that whichever hand added them later also revised the remainder of the text to be consistent with the glosses---MR.]
Edit
|
333 n. 99 |
Zurcher says that 中本起經 T196 shows “traces of later redaction in the inserted translations of Indian proper names.” He thinks that these could be later additions, but he notes that in two cases the text continues to regularly use the Chinese translation terms after their first occurrences in the glosses. [This would presumably mean either that the glosses were in fact integral to the initial translation of the text, and not added later; or that whichever hand added them later also revised the remainder of the text to be consistent with the glosses---MR.] T0196; 中本起經 |
|
|
No catalogue earlier than LDSBJ (i.e. neither Dao'an nor Sengyou's CSZJJ) ascribe any texts to Nei Daozhen 聶道真. This weakens the ascription of all texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen in the present Taishō. This record lists all those texts.
Edit
|
68 |
No catalogue earlier than LDSBJ (i.e. neither Dao'an nor Sengyou's CSZJJ) ascribe any texts to Nei Daozhen 聶道真. This weakens the ascription of all texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen in the present Taisho. This record lists all those texts. T0188; 異出菩薩本起經 T0282; Pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 菩薩求佛本業經; 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T0463; 佛說文殊師利般涅槃經 T0483; 三曼陀跋陀羅菩薩經 T1502; 菩薩受齋經 |
|
|
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 |
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. Zhi Daolin 支道林 Fangdeng fa hua jing 方等法華經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher states that in the list of texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa 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 Dharmaraksa text, and so I also exclude it---MR]. This note lists the remaining 27. Zurcher 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 Dharmaraksa corpus, on external grounds.] Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0170; 德光太子經 T0186; 普曜大方等典; *Vaitulya-nidana; Fangdeng yuanqi 方等本起; *Lalitavistara-mahavaitulya-dharmaparyaya; 普曜經 T0222; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 光讚經 T0263; 正法華方等; 正法華方等經典; 法華方等正經; 正法華經方等典詔; 正法華經 T0266; 佛說阿惟越致遮經; *Avaivartikacakra-vaitulya-dharmaparyaya T0285; 漸備一切智德經 T0291; 佛說如來興顯經 T0292; 度世品經 T0315; 佛說普門品經 T0338; 佛說離垢施女經 T0345; 慧上菩薩問大善權經 T0378; 佛說方等般泥洹經 T0398; 大哀經 T0399; 寶女所問經; 寶女三昧經 T0425; 賢劫經 T0435; 佛說滅十方冥經 T0460; 佛說文殊師利淨律經 T0461; 佛說文殊師利現寶藏經; 文殊師利寶藏經 T0585; 持心經; 持心梵天所問經 T0588; 佛說須真天子經; Suvikrantacinta devaputra pariprccha T0589; 佛說魔逆經 T0598; 佛說海龍王經 T0606; 偷迦遮復彌經 *Yogacarabhumi-sutra; 修行經; 修行道地經 T0627; 普超三昧經; 文殊支利普超三昧經; 文殊師利普超三昧經 T0817; 佛說大淨法門經 T310(3); Mijijingang lishi hui 密迹金剛力士會; Tathagatacintyaguhyanirdesa T310(47); Baoji pusa hui 寶髻菩薩會; Ratnacudapariprccha; 寶結菩薩經 |
|
|
Sengyou's CSZJJ preserves fifteen prefaces, postfaces and colophons to works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. This entry lists those works; one, the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra, is no longer extant. [All other things being equal, the external evidence supporting the ascription to Dharmarakṣa for these texts should therefore be stronger than for other texts. I was unable to find the colophon Zürcher points to for T285---MR.]
Edit
|
343 n. 221 |
Sengyou's CSZJJ preserves fifteen prefaces, postfaces and colophons to works ascribed to Dharmaraksa. This entry lists those works; one, the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra, is no longer extant. [All other things being equal, the external evidence supporting the ascription to Dharmaraksa for these texts should therefore be stronger than for other texts. I was unable to find the colophon Zurcher points to for T285---MR.] Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0103; 佛說聖法印經 T0186; 普曜大方等典; *Vaitulya-nidana; Fangdeng yuanqi 方等本起; *Lalitavistara-mahavaitulya-dharmaparyaya; 普曜經 T0222; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 光讚經 T0263; 正法華方等; 正法華方等經典; 法華方等正經; 正法華經方等典詔; 正法華經 T0266; 佛說阿惟越致遮經; *Avaivartikacakra-vaitulya-dharmaparyaya T0274; 佛說濟諸方等學經; *Sarvavaitulyasamgraha-dharmaparyaya? T0285; 漸備一切智德經 T0398; 大哀經 T0425; 賢劫經 T0460; 佛說文殊師利淨律經 T0585; 持心經; 持心梵天所問經 T0588; 佛說須真天子經; Suvikrantacinta devaputra pariprccha T0589; 佛說魔逆經 T0606; 偷迦遮復彌經 *Yogacarabhumi-sutra; 修行經; 修行道地經 Yong fu ding jing 勇伏定經 [Suramgamasamadhi-sutra] |
|
|
Zürcher argues that the Qingjing faxing jing 清淨法性經 was 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. The Qingjing faxing jing is classified among the “anonymous scriptures” by Sengyou in CSZJJ IV, in DTNDL T2149, and Gujin yijing tuji. Fajing listed it among “suspect scriptures” in Zhongjing mulu T2147, as did KYL, and Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu T2157. The Qingjing faxing jing is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in DZKZM. For this attribution the compilers of the catalogue refer to an otherwise unknown catalogue entitled Dayuduoluo lu 達欝多羅錄 [possibly the *Dharmottara catalogue, which may be another name for Fashang's 法上 catalogue---MR], and no other information is provided on the author or the date or composition. Therefore Zürcher states that “we should not attach any value to this attribution.”
Edit
|
312-314, 316-317, 438 n.133 |
Zurcher argues that the Qingjing faxing jing 清淨法性經 was 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, Zurcher 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 Zurcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries. The Qingjing faxing jing is classified among the “anonymous scriptures” by Sengyou in CSZJJ IV, in DTNDL T2149, and Gujin yijing tuji. Fajing listed it among “suspect scriptures” in Zhongjing mulu T2147, as did KYL, and Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu T2157. The Qingjing faxing jing is ascribed to Dharmaraksa in DZKZM. For this attribution the compilers of the catalogue refer to an otherwise unknown catalogue entitled Dayuduoluo lu 達欝多羅錄 [possibly the *Dharmottara catalogue, which may be another name for Fashang's 法上 catalogue---MR], and no other information is provided on the author or the date or composition. Therefore Zurcher states that “we should not attach any value to this attribution.” Qingjing faxing jing 清淨法性經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher 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, Zurcher 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 Zurcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries. Laozi daquan pusa jing 老子大權菩薩經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher 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, Zurcher 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 Zurcher, it is extensively quoted in Buddhist literature from the sixth and seventh centuries. Shi'eryou jing 十二游經 |
|
|
Out of 30-176 works attributed to An Shigao, Zürcher notes that only 34 have been ascribed to him 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, 香王菩薩陀羅尼咒經 T1157. Of these 19 texts, only four possess prefaces or early colophons and thus “may positively be attributed to” An Shigao: Renben yusheng jing (Mahānidāna sūtra) T14; Da anban shouyi jing (?Ānāpānasmṛtisūtra) T602; Yin chiru jing (?Skandha-dhātv-āyatana-sūtra) T603; Daodi jing (Yogacārabhūmi) T607.
Edit
|
33, 331 n. 82-83 |
Out of 30-176 works attributed to An Shigao, Zurcher notes that only 34 have been ascribed to him by Dao’an; 4 of these were attributed only hesitatingly, and of the remaining 30, only 19 have been preserved. Zurcher 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, 香王菩薩陀羅尼咒經 T1157. Of these 19 texts, only four possess prefaces or early colophons and thus “may positively be attributed to” An Shigao: Renben yusheng jing (Mahanidana sutra) T14; Da anban shouyi jing (?Anapanasmrtisutra) T602; Yin chiru jing (?Skandha-dhatv-ayatana-sutra) T603; Daodi jing (Yogacarabhumi) T607. An Shigao, 安世高 T0014; 人本欲生經 T0602; 佛說大安般守意經 T0603; 陰持入經 T0607; 道地經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Zurcher, 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). Zurcher 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 Daijo, 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, Zurcher notes that “far more” scholars have identified this text as genuine. Thus Zurcher 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, Zurcher 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.” 牟子理惑論, Mouzi li huo lun |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher 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 Daiio in “Kan-mei kyuho-setsu no kenkyu,” Toyogakuho X, 1920, pp 25-41 and in Yakkyo soroku, pp. 481-485; Mochizuki Shinko in Bukkyo daijiten p. 1811.1; Sakaino in Shina bukkyo seishi p. 57. Zurcher 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. Zurcher 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 sutras” and “the forty-two sections of emperor Xiaoming.” Referring to Liang Qichao, "op. cit."(??), vol. I, 5–7. Tokiwa Daijo 常盤大定. “Kanmei kyu ho setsu no kenkyu.” 漢明求法説の研究. Toyo gakuho 10 (1920): 25–41. Tokiwa Daijo 常盤大定, Yakkyo soroku 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. T0784; 四十二章經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Zurcher, 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, Zurcher notes that T68 “is not mentioned by Dao’an.” This entry includes all twenty-three texts accepted by Zurcher as genuine Zhi Qian translations. T0054; 釋摩男本四子經 T0068; 賴吒和羅經 T0076; 梵摩渝經 T0087; 齋經 T0169; 月明菩薩經 T0185; 太子瑞應本起經 T0198; 佛說義足經 T0225; 大明度經 T0281; 佛說菩薩本業經 T0362; 佛說阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T0474; 佛說維摩詰經 T0493; 佛說阿難四事經 T0532; Sihemei jing, 私呵昧經; Sihemo jing, 私呵末經; Sihe sanmei jing, 私呵三昧經; Pusa daoshu jing, 菩薩道樹經; Simhamati-sutra; Daoshu sanmei jing, 道樹三昧經 T0533; 菩薩生地經; Ksemankara-sutra; 差摩竭經 T0556; 佛說七女經 T0557; 佛說龍施女經 T0559; *Mahalalika-pariprccha-sutra, *Mahallika-pariprccha-sutra(?); 佛說老女人經 T0581; 佛說八師經 T0632; 佛說慧印三昧經; Tathagatajnanamudrasamadhi T0708; 了本生死經 T0790; 佛說孛經抄 T1011; 佛說無量門微密持經 T735C; T0735; 佛說四願經; Qi chu jing 七處經 fragment, 四願經 (mistitled) |
|
|
Edit
|
362 n. 213 |
Achu Focha zhu pusa xuecheng pin jing 阿閦佛剎諸菩薩學成品經; Achu Focha zhu pusa xuecheng pin jing 阿閦佛剎諸菩薩學成品經 |
|
|
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 [cf. 阿閦佛國經 T313, which however is thought to be the work of *Lokakṣema's school"---MR] were translated by Zhi Daolin 支道林. However, Zürcher argues that this is “clearly a mistake” for Zhi Daogen 支道根 a mostly unknown monk who, according to T2149, translated these texts in the period 326-343. Both texts had been lost by the time T2154 was compiled. [See e.g. Gujin yijing tu ji T2151:55.356a7-10.]
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 [cf. 阿閦佛國經 T313, which however is thought to be the work of *Lokaksema's school"---MR] were translated by Zhi Daolin 支道林. However, Zurcher argues that this is “clearly a mistake” for Zhi Daogen 支道根 a mostly unknown monk who, according to T2149, translated these texts in the period 326-343. Both texts had been lost by the time T2154 was compiled. [See e.g. Gujin yijing tu ji T2151:55.356a7-10.] Zhi Daogen 支道根 Achu Focha zhu pusa xuecheng pin jing 阿閦佛剎諸菩薩學成品經; Achu Focha zhu pusa xuecheng pin jing 阿閦佛剎諸菩薩學成品經 Fangdeng fa hua jing 方等法華經 |
|
|
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 |
According to Zurcher, the ascription of this text to An Shigao is not supported by the earliest external evidence. Zurcher 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 (Taisho) 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 (Zurcher 1991) Zurcher came to the opinion that T1508 should also be ascribed to An Shigao---JN/MR.] T0016; 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T0091; 婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T0092; 十支居士八城人經 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 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 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 |
|
|
The text of the present Anban shouyi jing 大安般守意經 T602, according to Zürcher, is mixed with commentary, which most likely consists of Chen Hui and Kang Senghui’s explanations, and Dao’an’s glosses.
Edit
|
53 |
The text of the present Anban shouyi jing 大安般守意經 T602, according to Zurcher, is mixed with commentary, which most likely consists of Chen Hui and Kang Senghui’s explanations, and Dao’an’s glosses. T0602; 佛說大安般守意經 |
|
|
Zürcher writes that the Tiwei Boli jing 提謂波利經 (Sūtra of Trapuṣa and Bhallika) is a popular “apocryphon” written in 460 CE by “the famous organiser of the Northern Church” Tanyao. The text includes a “bizarre classificatory system” wherein the “five Buddhist commandments” are made to correspond to five sacred mountains, five intestines, five planets, five (mythical) emperors etc. Zürcher sees this as an example of the “explanation of Buddhist ideas in terms of traditional Chinese cosmology”.
Edit
|
435 n. 97 |
Zurcher writes that the Tiwei Boli jing 提謂波利經 (Sutra of Trapusa and Bhallika) is a popular “apocryphon” written in 460 CE by “the famous organiser of the Northern Church” Tanyao. The text includes a “bizarre classificatory system” wherein the “five Buddhist commandments” are made to correspond to five sacred mountains, five intestines, five planets, five (mythical) emperors etc. Zurcher sees this as an example of the “explanation of Buddhist ideas in terms of traditional Chinese cosmology”. Sutra of Trapusa and Bhallika; Tiwei Boli jing, 提謂波利經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher 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: etude critique des sources”, BEFEO X, 1901, pp. 95-130.
Zurcher later adds that in describing the Buddha's birth, Zhi Qian's text uses the words 夜明 ("the night was bright"). Zurcher 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 Zurcher reads this passage as Zhi Qian's attempt to bring this echo into his readers' minds. T0185; 太子瑞應本起經 |
|
|
Zürcher notes in passing that the “biography" of Nāgārjuna 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 is wrongly ascribed to Kumārajīva.
Edit
|
340 n. 182 |
Zurcher notes in passing that the “biography" of Nagarjuna 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 is wrongly ascribed to Kumarajiva. T2047; 龍樹菩薩傳 |
|
|
Kumārajīva’s 孔雀王咒經 T988, according to Zürcher, is the earliest attributed and datable version of the Mahāmāyurividyārājñi. However, Zürcher also notes that this text does not feature among the thirty-five translations ascribed to Kumārajīva in CSZJJ II.
Edit
|
354 n. 99 |
Kumarajiva’s 孔雀王咒經 T988, according to Zurcher, is the earliest attributed and datable version of the Mahamayurividyarajni. However, Zurcher also notes that this text does not feature among the thirty-five translations ascribed to Kumarajiva in CSZJJ II. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 T0988; 孔雀王呪經; *Mahamayuri-[vidyarajni]-sutra |
|
|
The Guangzan jing 光讚經 T222, Dharmarakṣa’s version of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, translated in 286 at Chang’an, was lost in the Xiongnu conquest during the beginning of the fourth century. However, Zürcher argues that the text remained in circulation in the Dunhuang branch of Dharmarakṣa’s school in Liangzhou (Gansu); whence Dao’an eventually obtained an incomplete copy in 376. Furthermore, according to Dao’an (CSZJJ VII 48.1.19 n. 221 nr. 2 and IX 62.2.25 n. 221, ib.) “at least a part” could be found in Shanxi and Northern Henan at around 340.
Jizang 吉臧, in his Dapin jing youyi 大品經遊意, identified the Guangzan jing with the largest version of the Prajñāpāramitā; an identification which, Zürcher argues, “is certainly wrong.” Zürcher claims that Jizang’s theory is most likely based on an incomprehensible passage contained in the Da zhidu lun 大智度論T1509, 67 (p. 529.2.23).
Edit
|
68, 70, 191, 340 n. 182, 344 n.237 |
The Guangzan jing 光讚經 T222, Dharmaraksa’s version of the Pancavimsatisahasrika prajnaparamita, translated in 286 at Chang’an, was lost in the Xiongnu conquest during the beginning of the fourth century. However, Zurcher argues that the text remained in circulation in the Dunhuang branch of Dharmaraksa’s school in Liangzhou (Gansu); whence Dao’an eventually obtained an incomplete copy in 376. Furthermore, according to Dao’an (CSZJJ VII 48.1.19 n. 221 nr. 2 and IX 62.2.25 n. 221, ib.) “at least a part” could be found in Shanxi and Northern Henan at around 340.
Jizang 吉臧, in his Dapin jing youyi 大品經遊意, identified the Guangzan jing with the largest version of the Prajnaparamita; an identification which, Zurcher argues, “is certainly wrong.” Zurcher claims that Jizang’s theory is most likely based on an incomprehensible passage contained in the Da zhidu lun 大智度論T1509, 67 (p. 529.2.23). Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0222; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 光讚經 |
|
|
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. |
Zurcher claims that the traditional attribution of the Guanding jing 灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘咒經 (*Mahabhiseka-mantra?) T1331 to Srimitra is “almost certainly wrong.” He says that the text does not feature in the earliest catalogues; the earliest attributions of this text to Srimitra 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. Zurcher 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. Zurcher suggests that we maintain a “certain reserve” about the dating of this Guanding jing. T1331; 佛說灌頂經 |
|
|
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 |
One of the most important texts translated by Dharmaraksa is the Zheng fahua jing 正法華經 T263 [Saddharmapundarikasutra]. According to Zurcher, 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.) Zurcher states that the translation was completed in three weeks (“September 15-October 6, 286”) at Chang’an. It is also said that Dharmaraksa 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. Dharmaraksa’s translation was revised twice, first by the Indian monk Zhu Li 竺力 with the Korean upasaka Bo Yuanxin 帛元信, and later in March 288. Zurcher 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 Jnanagupta’s edition of the Lotus-sutra 添品妙法蓮華經 T264. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0263; 正法華方等; 正法華方等經典; 法華方等正經; 正法華經方等典詔; 正法華經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher 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, Zurcher 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. Otani Seishin, “An Seiko no yakkyo ni tsuite” Toyogakuho XIII, 1924, pp. 546-583. T0032; 四諦經 |
|
|
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 |
Zurcher argues that the Daoxing (bore) jing 道行般若經 (Astasahasrika prajnaparamita) T224 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokaksema 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. Zurcher 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. Zurcher adds that daoxing, “the practice of the way,” is a translation of Sarvakarajnatacarya, the name of the first chapter. He also notes that the earliest catalogues “mention another Han time version of the Astsahasrika [ascribed to *Lokaksema or Zhu Shuofo] ... which among students of Buddhist bibliography has given rise to the wildest speculations.” He cites Sakaino Koyo, as summarised by Matsumoto Tokumyo, Die Prajnaparamita-literatur, 1932, pp. 18-19. T0224; 道行般若經 |
|
|
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 in one juan (T417) is “an abstract made from the earlier more extensive text.” The more extensive text being the one in three juan (T418) which Hayashiya considers the original translation by *Lokakṣema. He adds that besides these two texts, there is another “short and archaic version” (the Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419) which "probably dates from Han times."
Edit
|
35, 332-333 n. 95 |
Zurcher argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing (Pratyutpannabuddhasamukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra) T417/418 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokaksema 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.). Zurcher adds that the textual origins of this scripture are complicated, and scholars who have studied the text have reached very different opinions. Zurcher cites Hayashiya Tomojiro (Kyoroku-kenkyu, pp. 544-578) who “discusses the opinions of former specialists” such as Sakaino Koyo and Mochizuki Shinko; after a careful comparison of the two versions, Hayashiya concludes that the version in in one juan (T417) is “an abstract made from the earlier more extensive text.” The more extensive text being the one in three juan (T418) which Hayashiya considers the original translation by *Lokaksema. He adds that besides these two texts, there is another “short and archaic version” (the Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419) which "probably dates from Han times." T0417; Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra; 般舟三昧經 |