Kimura Senshō 木村宣彰. "Kumarajū no yakukyō 鳩摩羅什の訳経." Ōtani daigaku kenkyū nenpō 大谷大学研究年報 38 (1986): 59-135.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence relating to the date and process of translation for the Shi’ermen lun 十二門論 T1568: T2059, T2149 and T2034 do not give any information concerning the date of translation. T1568 is not recorded in the Er Qin lu 二秦錄 [as reported in LDSBJ], even though Sengrui 僧叡 was the author of a preface to the text, on the one hand, and the reputed compiler of the catalogue, on the other hand. The record 弘始十年(408 CE)於大寺出 in T2154 and 以大秦弘始年於逍遙園中 in the Shi’ermen lun zong zhiyi ji 十二門論中致義記 T1826 contradict each other [especially regarding the place of translation], and both seem to be baseless. There is a possibility that the preface is apocryphal and, according to Xuji gujin Fodao lunheng 續集古今佛道論衡 T2105 and Kamata Shigeo 謙田茂雄, that T1568 was translated when Kumārajīva was in Liangzhou 涼州. [On the other hand, if the preface is genuine, this conflict may have implications for the authenticity of the Er Qin lu --- MR.] |
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence relating to the date and process of translation for the Shi’ermen lun 十二門論 T1568: T2059, T2149 and T2034 do not give any information concerning the date of translation. T1568 is not recorded in the Er Qin lu 二秦錄 [as reported in LDSBJ], even though Sengrui 僧叡 was the author of a preface to the text, on the one hand, and the reputed compiler of the catalogue, on the other hand. The record 弘始十年(408 CE)於大寺出 in T2154 and 以大秦弘始年於逍遙園中 in the Shi’ermen lun zong zhiyi ji 十二門論中致義記 T1826 contradict each other [especially regarding the place of translation], and both seem to be baseless. There is a possibility that the preface is apocryphal and, according to Xuji gujin Fodao lunheng 續集古今佛道論衡 T2105 and Kamata Shigeo 謙田茂雄, that T1568 was translated when Kumarajiva was in Liangzhou 涼州. [On the other hand, if the preface is genuine, this conflict may have implications for the authenticity of the Er Qin lu --- MR.] Er Qin lu 二秦錄 Shi'er men lun xu 十二門論序 | |
|
Kimura argues that the record of 24 texts ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, supposedly from the Er Qin lu 二秦錄, should be the most reliable source available about Kumārajīva's work (see separate entry on LDSBJ’s reports about Kj’s works in the Er Qin lu). Although many scholars consider reports about the Er Qin lu, preserved in the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記 T2034 and Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149, to be unreliable, Kimura argues that it is an important and reliable source, because its author, Sengrui 僧叡, was a close disciple of Kumārajīva and witnessed the translation activities directly. |
Kimura argues that the record of 24 texts ascribed to Kumarajiva in LDSBJ, supposedly from the Er Qin lu 二秦錄, should be the most reliable source available about Kumarajiva's work (see separate entry on LDSBJ’s reports about Kj’s works in the Er Qin lu). Although many scholars consider reports about the Er Qin lu, preserved in the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記 T2034 and Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149, to be unreliable, Kimura argues that it is an important and reliable source, because its author, Sengrui 僧叡, was a close disciple of Kumarajiva and witnessed the translation activities directly. Er Qin lu 二秦錄 T0223; Fangguang banre boluomi jing 方廣般若波羅蜜經; 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 T0227; 小品般若波羅蜜經 T0235; 金剛般若波羅蜜經 T0262; 妙法蓮華經 T0286; 十住經 T0366; 佛說阿彌陀經 T0420; 自在王菩薩經 T0475; 維摩詰所說經 T0482; 持世經 T0586; 思益梵天所問經 T0650; 諸法無行經 T0653; 佛藏經 T0657; 佛說華手經; 華首經 T1509; 大智度論 T1521; 十住毘婆沙論 T1564; 中論 T1569; 百論 T1646; 成實論 | |
Kimura takes as his baseline for his examination of the Kumārajīva corpus the 24 texts that Fei Zhangfang, in LDSBJ, reports were ascribed to Kumārajīva in the Er Qin lu, supposedly by Sengrui. On this basis, Kimura argues that nine texts that were added to Sengrui’s list by Sengyou 僧祐 in CSZJJ: the Śūraṅgamasamādhi 首楞嚴經二卷 T642, a Pusa jing 菩提經一卷 (cf. Gayāśīrṣa T464), the Yi jiao jing 遺教經一卷 (??), the Shi’er yinyuan jing 十二因緣觀經一卷 (??), the Pusa he seyu 菩薩呵色欲一卷 T615, the Chan fa yao jie 禪法要解二卷 T616, the Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經一卷 T208, the Shi’er men lun 十二門論一卷 T1568, and the Chan fa yao 禪法要三卷 (cf. T616 again?). Kimura concludes that these nine texts must have been entries in error, or duplicate entries (誤載、重載). |
Kimura takes as his baseline for his examination of the Kumarajiva corpus the 24 texts that Fei Zhangfang, in LDSBJ, reports were ascribed to Kumarajiva in the Er Qin lu, supposedly by Sengrui. On this basis, Kimura argues that nine texts that were added to Sengrui’s list by Sengyou 僧祐 in CSZJJ: the Surangamasamadhi 首楞嚴經二卷 T642, a Pusa jing 菩提經一卷 (cf. Gayasirsa T464), the Yi jiao jing 遺教經一卷 (??), the Shi’er yinyuan jing 十二因緣觀經一卷 (??), the Pusa he seyu 菩薩呵色欲一卷 T615, the Chan fa yao jie 禪法要解二卷 T616, the Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經一卷 T208, the Shi’er men lun 十二門論一卷 T1568, and the Chan fa yao 禪法要三卷 (cf. T616 again?). Kimura concludes that these nine texts must have been entries in error, or duplicate entries (誤載、重載). T0208; 眾經撰雜譬喻 T0464; 文殊師利問菩提經 T0615; 菩薩訶色欲法經 T0616; 禪法要解 T0642; *Suramgamasamadhi-sutra; 佛說首楞嚴三昧經 T1529; 遺教經論 T1568; 十二門論 | ||
|
Kimura analyses two prefaces to Kumārajīva's Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮花經 T262, by Huiguan 慧觀 and Sengrui 僧叡. According to these prefaces and most catalogues, the text was translated in 406 弘始八年. There are some minor differences between Huiguan's 慧觀 and Sengrui's 僧叡account of the translation activities. Kimura concludes that Sengrui's account refers to the first draft (初訳) and Huiguan's 慧觀 account refers to the last (“definitive”) draft (決定訳). However, the date of 405 弘始七年in the Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定眾經目錄 T2153 (右後秦弘始七年沙門羅什於長安逍遙園譯, T2153 [LV] 385c10-11 [according to a note, taken from LDSBJ --- MR]) is not necessarily wrong. It is echoed by fascicle 3 of the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀卷三 T2034; Sengxiang's 僧詳 Fahua zhuanji 法華傳記 (弘始七年冬); and the colophon of the Dunhuang manuscript edited by Tokiwa Daijō常盤大定 (此經是偽秦弘始七年三月十六日 羅什法師於長安大明寺翻譯之 又別錄及慧遠法師所記日月小不同). Here, the phrase “Lushan Huiyuan’s memorandum” 慧遠法師所記 refers to Huiyuan's 慧遠 Miaofa lianhua jing xu 妙法蓮華經序. Although this document is not extant, there are fragments preserved in Zhanran's 湛然 Fahua wenju ji juan 法華文句記卷 T1719 (東安法師云 七年三月十六日譯訖 慧遠經序同 或云 弘始十年二月譯竟 不同之事不可追尋). Here, 東安法師 refers to another disciple of Kumārajīva, Huiyan 慧嚴, who returned from Chang’an 長安 to Jiankang 建康. Considering all this evidence, Kimura suggests that the translation might have been done in 405, with eight hundreds monks in attendance, according to Sengrui, and revised in 406, with two thousands monks, according to Huiguan. |
Kimura analyses two prefaces to Kumarajiva's Saddharmapundarika, Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮花經 T262, by Huiguan 慧觀 and Sengrui 僧叡. According to these prefaces and most catalogues, the text was translated in 406 弘始八年. There are some minor differences between Huiguan's 慧觀 and Sengrui's 僧叡account of the translation activities. Kimura concludes that Sengrui's account refers to the first draft (初訳) and Huiguan's 慧觀 account refers to the last (“definitive”) draft (決定訳). However, the date of 405 弘始七年in the Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定眾經目錄 T2153 (右後秦弘始七年沙門羅什於長安逍遙園譯, T2153 [LV] 385c10-11 [according to a note, taken from LDSBJ --- MR]) is not necessarily wrong. It is echoed by fascicle 3 of the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀卷三 T2034; Sengxiang's 僧詳 Fahua zhuanji 法華傳記 (弘始七年冬); and the colophon of the Dunhuang manuscript edited by Tokiwa Daijo常盤大定 (此經是偽秦弘始七年三月十六日 羅什法師於長安大明寺翻譯之 又別錄及慧遠法師所記日月小不同). Here, the phrase “Lushan Huiyuan’s memorandum” 慧遠法師所記 refers to Huiyuan's 慧遠 Miaofa lianhua jing xu 妙法蓮華經序. Although this document is not extant, there are fragments preserved in Zhanran's 湛然 Fahua wenju ji juan 法華文句記卷 T1719 (東安法師云 七年三月十六日譯訖 慧遠經序同 或云 弘始十年二月譯竟 不同之事不可追尋). Here, 東安法師 refers to another disciple of Kumarajiva, Huiyan 慧嚴, who returned from Chang’an 長安 to Jiankang 建康. Considering all this evidence, Kimura suggests that the translation might have been done in 405, with eight hundreds monks in attendance, according to Sengrui, and revised in 406, with two thousands monks, according to Huiguan. T0262; 妙法蓮華經 | |
|
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence pertaining to the process and date of translation for the Zhong lun 中論 T1564 (Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā). There is no record of the date of T1564 in CSZJJ, nor in Huijiao's 慧皎 Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 T2059. Both the Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149 and LDSBJ T2034 do not specify the year of translation (弘始年出). According to the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154, the translation was done in 409 弘始十一年. While "Sengrui" [presumably referring to the Er Qin lu as reported in LJDSB -- MR] records no date of translation, Tanying's 曇影 preface indicates in an interlinear note (割注) that the text was translated in 410 弘始十一年. Nonetheless, Kimura surmises that the interlinear note was added by a later scribe. It is possible that T1564 was translated multiple times. Tsukamoto Zenryū 塚本善隆 shows in his Jōron kenkyū 肇論研究 that verses from it, cited in T1858, reveal an older version, since they differ drastically from the extant T1564. Kimura further shows that parallel verses in T1509 (translated in 405) differ from the extant T1564. Kimura concludes that there were two translations of T1564, which also explains why CSZJJ includes two prefaces with differences names (中論序 by Sengrui and 中觀論序 by 曇影 Tanying). |
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence pertaining to the process and date of translation for the Zhong lun 中論 T1564 (Mulamadhyamaka-karika). There is no record of the date of T1564 in CSZJJ, nor in Huijiao's 慧皎 Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 T2059. Both the Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149 and LDSBJ T2034 do not specify the year of translation (弘始年出). According to the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154, the translation was done in 409 弘始十一年. While "Sengrui" [presumably referring to the Er Qin lu as reported in LJDSB -- MR] records no date of translation, Tanying's 曇影 preface indicates in an interlinear note (割注) that the text was translated in 410 弘始十一年. Nonetheless, Kimura surmises that the interlinear note was added by a later scribe. It is possible that T1564 was translated multiple times. Tsukamoto Zenryu 塚本善隆 shows in his Joron kenkyu 肇論研究 that verses from it, cited in T1858, reveal an older version, since they differ drastically from the extant T1564. Kimura further shows that parallel verses in T1509 (translated in 405) differ from the extant T1564. Kimura concludes that there were two translations of T1564, which also explains why CSZJJ includes two prefaces with differences names (中論序 by Sengrui and 中觀論序 by 曇影 Tanying). T1564; 中論 | |
|
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence relating to the date and process of translation for the Shi’ermen lun 十二門論 T1568: T2059, T2149 and T2034 do not give any information concerning the date of translation. T1568 is not recorded in the Er Qin lu 二秦錄 [as reported in LDSBJ], even though Sengrui 僧叡 was the author of a preface to the text, on the one hand, and the reputed compiler of the catalogue, on the other hand. The record 弘始十年(408 CE)於大寺出 in T2154 and 以大秦弘始年於逍遙園中 in the Shi’ermen lun zong zhiyi ji 十二門論中致義記 T1826 contradict each other [especially regarding the place of translation], and both seem to be baseless. There is a possibility that the preface is apocryphal and, according to Xuji gujin Fodao lunheng 續集古今佛道論衡 T2105 and Kamata Shigeo 謙田茂雄, that T1568 was translated when Kumārajīva was in Liangzhou 涼州. |
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence relating to the date and process of translation for the Shi’ermen lun 十二門論 T1568: T2059, T2149 and T2034 do not give any information concerning the date of translation. T1568 is not recorded in the Er Qin lu 二秦錄 [as reported in LDSBJ], even though Sengrui 僧叡 was the author of a preface to the text, on the one hand, and the reputed compiler of the catalogue, on the other hand. The record 弘始十年(408 CE)於大寺出 in T2154 and 以大秦弘始年於逍遙園中 in the Shi’ermen lun zong zhiyi ji 十二門論中致義記 T1826 contradict each other [especially regarding the place of translation], and both seem to be baseless. There is a possibility that the preface is apocryphal and, according to Xuji gujin Fodao lunheng 續集古今佛道論衡 T2105 and Kamata Shigeo 謙田茂雄, that T1568 was translated when Kumarajiva was in Liangzhou 涼州. T1568; 十二門論 | |
|
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence pertaining to the date and process of translation for the Bai lun 百論 T1569 (*Śataśāstra). According to CSZJJ, T1569 was translated in 弘始八年 406. According to the Er Qin lu 二秦錄 [as reported in LDSBJ], T2034, T2149 and T2154, it was translated in 弘始六年 404. Although there is only one preface extant, by Sengzhao, according to Lu Cheng’s 陸澄 Falun mulu 法論目錄, there were two prefaces entitled 百論序, by Sengrui and Sengzhao respectively. According to Sengzhao, Kumārajīva translated the text before he was acquainted with the Chinese language (以為心要先雖親譯 而方言未融). Jizang 吉藏, in his Bailun Shu 百論疏, explains that Sengrui's preface was to the translation done before 402, and Sengzhao's preface was to the retranslation in 404 (又叡師序是弘始四年前翻 什師初至方言未融為此作序 猶未中詣 肇師序即是此文六年重翻). Another piece of evidence supporting the contention that the text was translated twice is a passage that indicates two sponsors for the translation project: first Yao Xing 姚興, second Yao Song 姚松 (翻論檀越有二人二處二時 初是天子姚興為旦越 次是姚嵩 初在逍遙薗西明閣上 次是草堂寺). The second version was intended to correct the mistakes and deficiencies in the first translation. This shows that T1569 was translated twice, and what is transmitted to us is the later (“definitive”) version (治定本). |
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence pertaining to the date and process of translation for the Bai lun 百論 T1569 (*Satasastra). According to CSZJJ, T1569 was translated in 弘始八年 406. According to the Er Qin lu 二秦錄 [as reported in LDSBJ], T2034, T2149 and T2154, it was translated in 弘始六年 404. Although there is only one preface extant, by Sengzhao, according to Lu Cheng’s 陸澄 Falun mulu 法論目錄, there were two prefaces entitled 百論序, by Sengrui and Sengzhao respectively. According to Sengzhao, Kumarajiva translated the text before he was acquainted with the Chinese language (以為心要先雖親譯 而方言未融). Jizang 吉藏, in his Bailun Shu 百論疏, explains that Sengrui's preface was to the translation done before 402, and Sengzhao's preface was to the retranslation in 404 (又叡師序是弘始四年前翻 什師初至方言未融為此作序 猶未中詣 肇師序即是此文六年重翻). Another piece of evidence supporting the contention that the text was translated twice is a passage that indicates two sponsors for the translation project: first Yao Xing 姚興, second Yao Song 姚松 (翻論檀越有二人二處二時 初是天子姚興為旦越 次是姚嵩 初在逍遙薗西明閣上 次是草堂寺). The second version was intended to correct the mistakes and deficiencies in the first translation. This shows that T1569 was translated twice, and what is transmitted to us is the later (“definitive”) version (治定本). T1569; 百論 | |
|
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence relating to the date and process of translation for the Chengshi lun 成實論 T1646 (*Satyasiddhi/Tattvasiddhi). The date of translation recorded in CSZJJ and T2154 (412, 弘始十四年九月十五日) is irreconcilable with the date of Kumārajīva's death as recorded in T2059 (409, 弘始十一年). T2034 and T2149 have 406 弘始八年出 and cite the Er Qin lu as source (見二秦錄). According to the Lüe chengshi lun 略成實論記, Tangui 曇晷 and Tanying 曇影 were the scribes for this translation (曇晷筆受 曇影正寫). On the one hand, according to the Tanying zhuan 曇影傳 in T2059, T1646 was translated before the Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮花經 T262 (初出成實論…什後出妙法華經). On the other hand, according to the Sengrui zhuan 僧叡傳, T262 was translated before T1646 (昔竺法護出正法華經受決品云…什譯經至此乃言…後出成實論). In Zhongguan Chengchan's 中觀澄禪 Sanlun xuanyi jianyou ji 三論玄義撿幽集, it is said that there were two versions of T1646 in circulation (秦主姚興弘始十三年尚書令姚顯請者波法師於長安始譯此論…其初譯國語未暇治正…及改定前傳已廣 是故此論遂兩本俱行). Kimura concludes that Kumārajīva has finished translating T1646 in 406 and then Tanying revised and supplemented the part on the five skandhas in 412. |
Kimura analyses various items of external evidence relating to the date and process of translation for the Chengshi lun 成實論 T1646 (*Satyasiddhi/Tattvasiddhi). The date of translation recorded in CSZJJ and T2154 (412, 弘始十四年九月十五日) is irreconcilable with the date of Kumarajiva's death as recorded in T2059 (409, 弘始十一年). T2034 and T2149 have 406 弘始八年出 and cite the Er Qin lu as source (見二秦錄). According to the Lue chengshi lun 略成實論記, Tangui 曇晷 and Tanying 曇影 were the scribes for this translation (曇晷筆受 曇影正寫). On the one hand, according to the Tanying zhuan 曇影傳 in T2059, T1646 was translated before the Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮花經 T262 (初出成實論...什後出妙法華經). On the other hand, according to the Sengrui zhuan 僧叡傳, T262 was translated before T1646 (昔竺法護出正法華經受決品云...什譯經至此乃言...後出成實論). In Zhongguan Chengchan's 中觀澄禪 Sanlun xuanyi jianyou ji 三論玄義撿幽集, it is said that there were two versions of T1646 in circulation (秦主姚興弘始十三年尚書令姚顯請者波法師於長安始譯此論...其初譯國語未暇治正...及改定前傳已廣 是故此論遂兩本俱行). Kimura concludes that Kumarajiva has finished translating T1646 in 406 and then Tanying revised and supplemented the part on the five skandhas in 412. T1646; 成實論 |