| Identifier | T0383 [T] |
| Title | 摩訶摩耶經 [T] |
| Date | 443-479 [Utsuo 1954] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Radich 2019b] |
| Translator 譯 | Tanjing, 曇景 [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 21c28 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T383 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 摩訶摩耶經二卷(或云摩耶經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 115c12, 123a11, 127a17. |
Ascribed to Tanjing in an interlinear note in Fajing: 摩訶摩耶經一卷 [v.l. +蕭齊 S]沙門曇景譯, T2146 (LV) 115c12. The same attribution appears again in a list at the end of fascicle 1, 123a11; however, according to the Taishō apparatus (122 n. 1), this list is taken from M, and collated against Y, which suggests it is missing from S and K (and therefore a late addition?). The same title (with a different number of juan) also incongruously appears in a list of 23 texts, T2146 (LV) 127a11-b8, in a part of the catalogue handling "fake and spurious sutras" 眾經偽妄 (fasicle 2). Fajing appends to this list a note stating "[these] 23 texts were all concocted by Xiao Ziliang, Prince of Jingling under the Southern Qi, who frivolously[?] abridged or expanded the great texts, [according] to his own whim; [he thus] violated the sacred teaching, and wrought havoc with the true scriptures. We therefore append them at the end of [this list of] forgeries, as a caution to later generations" 二十三經。並是南齊竟陵王蕭子良。輕悉自心。於大本內。或增或損。斟酌成經。違反聖教。蕪亂真典。故附偽末。用誡後人. [This title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 54a8, 96a26 |
In LDSBJ, a title corresponding to T383 is ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜, citing the Wu lu; but elsewhere, also to Shi Tanjing, citing Baochang, Fashang and Wang Zong 王宗. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Utsuo 1954] Utsuo Shōshin 撫尾正信. "Makamaya kyō kan'yaku ni kansuru gigi 摩訶摩耶経漢訳に関する疑義." Saga Ryūkoku gakkai kiyō 佐賀龍谷学会紀要 2 (1954): 1-28[L]. — 25 |
Utsuo argues that the Mahāmāyā was composed in China, and dates between 443 and 479 CE. Utsuo’s main grounds for this claim are as follows. 1. T383 is ascribed to Tanjing 曇景 (fl. 479–502) from Fajing’s 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146 onward, but the wording does not match Tanjing's supposed other translation, the Weicengyou yinyuan jing 未曾有因緣經 T754. 2. The circumstances of the supposed translation are vague. Tanjing is an almost perfectly obscure figure, and neither of the two historical person that can be identified with that name could plausibly have translated this text. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 rejects as spurious some of the supposed details attaching to the translation. 3. The text makes a mistake in the identification and placement of two of the four “heavenly kings”: it puts Virūḍhaka in the West, and Virūpākṣa in the South, but the reverse is the norm. 4. A passage speaks of China 振旦, and briefly sketches the spread of Buddhism to that region. 5. We find close matches in content and specific phrasing to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra大般涅槃經 T7 ascribed to Faxian 法顯. 6. The wording sometimes has a “Chinese tang”, and the wording of different parts of the text is inconsistent. 7. The text features a timetable for the disappearance of the Dharma which Utsuo analyses as a digest of similar sources available in China at this time. In particular, Utsuo thinks that he finds telling matches with T396. 8. The text has a whiff of “Chinese ethics”, particularly in emphases on filial relations between mother and son, and the requital of maternal love. 9. The third title given internally for the text, 佛昇忉利天為母說法經, is taken from an older Chinese text, Dharmarakṣa’s T815, which has entirely different content. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019b] Radich, Michael. “Was the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T7 Translated by ‘Faxian’? An Exercise in the Computer-Assisted Assessment of Attributions in the Chinese Buddhist Canon.” Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies: E-journal 2, no. 1 (2019): 229-279. |
Abstract: "In the Taishō canon, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T no. 7 is attributed to Faxian 法顯. However, on the basis of an examination of reports in the catalogues about various Chinese versions of the ‘mainstream’ Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫 once questioned whether Faxian ever translated any such text. Iwamatsu argued further, on the basis of unspecified features of translation terminology and phraseology, that T no. 7 should instead be reascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. This paper will examine the problem of the attribution of T no. 7 on the basis of a detailed examination of its language." Radich concludes (266-267): "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra T no. 7 is much closer to the style of certain texts ascribed to ‘Guṇabhadra’ than it is to ‘Faxian’ .... We should, therefore, overturn the ascription to Faxian carried by ‘FX’-MPNS in the Taishō. At the same time, however, it is not safe to follow Iwamatsu and simply re-ascribe the text to ‘Guṇabhadra’. In fact, markers distinguishing ‘FX’-MPNS from the ‘Faxian’ corpus are found much more densely in the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] than in any other ‘Guṇabhadra’ text. Further, a range of highly specific markers associate ‘FX’-MPNS [T7] and Guoqu [T189] very closely with two further bodies of material, the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383], and the Buddhacarita T no. 192 and/or the Fo benxing jing T no. 193. Stylistically speaking, these four (or five) texts comprise a tightly interrelated group, which are also connected by common themes and content." Radich followed this work up with a further examination of internal evidence for close intertextual relations between T7, T189, and T383 [publication actually appeared chronologically earlier], Radich 2018a (see separate CB@ entry). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2018a] Radich, Michael. “A Triad of Texts from Fifth-Century Southern China: The *Mahāmāyā-sūtra, the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing, and a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra ascribed to Faxian.” Journal of Chinese Religions 46, no. 1 (2018): 1-41. DOI: 10.1080/0737769X.2018.1435370. |
Abstract: "In previous work [Radich 2019b; see separate CBC@ entry], I have shown that the (Mainstream, “smaller”) Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra ascribed to Faxian is in fact almost certainly not his work, and that internal evidence closely associates it with two other texts: the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] ascribed to Guṇabhadra and the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383] ascribed to Tanjing. This paper analyzes the content of these texts, in order to ascertain (as much as possible) their likely relation to one another; the context in which they were composed; and their relations to that context. In addressing questions of context, the analysis applies innovative computer-assisted methods, which allow us to pinpoint detailed clues of highly specific intertextual relationships among a broad range of texts. This enables us to discover in the present triad of texts internal evidence pointing to close relations to a very specific body of literature in the fifth century." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|