Watanabe Shōgo 渡辺章悟. "Kyōroku kara mita Makahannyaharamitsu shinju kyō to Makahannyaharamitsu daimyōju kyō" 経録からみた『摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪経』と『摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪経』." Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 39, no. 1 (1990): 54-58.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
Watanabe explores the relationship between traditions about a (lost) Heart Sūtra ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, the Mohe bore boluomi shenzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪經, and the Mohe bore boluomi damingzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪經 T250 ascribed to Kumārajīva, the oldest extant version of the text. He concludes that, despite the evidence from the catalogues, the ascription of the former to Zhi Qian and the latter to Kumārajiva is not reliable. According to the catalogues, there were two versions of the Shenzhou jing 神咒經 (A and B) and one of the Damingzhou jing 大明咒經 T250. In general, the traditional bibliographies divided into two lines: (1) on the one hand, Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146, echoed by Yancong's 彥琮 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2147 and Jingtai's 靜泰 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2148, assert that A and B are two different versions, and the translators are unknown (失訳). (2) On the other hand, Fei Changfang's 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記 T2034, which is itself a unreliable source, attributes A to Zhi Qian and does not mention B. The Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149 and the Gujin yinjing tuji 古今譯經圖紀 T2152 follow the attribution of Fei Changfang, and remark that the translator of B is unknown. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 follows T2034 and considers A and B to be the same text (同本). T250 first appears in KYL, and is attributed to Kumārajīva. KYL is then followed in this regard by the Zhenyuan xinding Shijing mulu 貞元新定釋經目錄 T2157. Watanabe contends that T250 must be considered an apocryphon, composed upon the basis of the "Larger" Prajñāpāramitā T223 by Kumārajīva, and the "translation" of the Heart Sūtra 般若心經 T251 ascribed to Xuanzang. |
Watanabe explores the relationship between traditions about a (lost) Heart Sutra ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, the Mohe bore boluomi shenzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪經, and the Mohe bore boluomi damingzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪經 T250 ascribed to Kumarajiva, the oldest extant version of the text. He concludes that, despite the evidence from the catalogues, the ascription of the former to Zhi Qian and the latter to Kumarajiva is not reliable. According to the catalogues, there were two versions of the Shenzhou jing 神咒經 (A and B) and one of the Damingzhou jing 大明咒經 T250. In general, the traditional bibliographies divided into two lines: (1) on the one hand, Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146, echoed by Yancong's 彥琮 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2147 and Jingtai's 靜泰 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2148, assert that A and B are two different versions, and the translators are unknown (失訳). (2) On the other hand, Fei Changfang's 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記 T2034, which is itself a unreliable source, attributes A to Zhi Qian and does not mention B. The Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149 and the Gujin yinjing tuji 古今譯經圖紀 T2152 follow the attribution of Fei Changfang, and remark that the translator of B is unknown. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 follows T2034 and considers A and B to be the same text (同本). T250 first appears in KYL, and is attributed to Kumarajiva. KYL is then followed in this regard by the Zhenyuan xinding Shijing mulu 貞元新定釋經目錄 T2157. Watanabe contends that T250 must be considered an apocryphon, composed upon the basis of the "Larger" Prajnaparamita T223 by Kumarajiva, and the "translation" of the Heart Sutra 般若心經 T251 ascribed to Xuanzang. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Banre boluomi zhou jing 般若波羅蜜呪經; Mohe banre boluomi shenzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪經; Mohe banre buluomi zhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜呪經; 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪 T0250; 摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪經 |