| Identifier | T2058 [T] |
| Title | 付法藏因緣傳 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Co-translator 共譯 | Changnayeshe 常那耶舍, *Jnānayaśas?; Tanyao, 曇曜 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Jijiaye, 吉迦夜, *Kivkara?, *Kiṃkara?, *Kiṃkārya? [Sakaino 1935] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | Tanyao, 曇曜 [Sakaino 1935] |
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 |
[Yamada 1955] Yamada Ryūjō 山田龍城. "Rengemen gyō ni tsuite: Guputa makki no Indo Bukkyō jijō 蓮華面経について―グプタ末期のインド仏教事情." In Indogaku Bukkyōgaku ronsō: Yamaguchi hakase kanreki kinen 印度学仏教学論叢：山口博士還暦記念, edited by the Yamaguchi hakase kanreki kinenkai 山口博士還暦記念会, 110-123[R].Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1955. |
Yamada reports that a king with a name probably equating to that of the Hephthalite Hun Mihirakula, i.e. 彌羅掘, appears in the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058:50.321c15. This text is traditionally regarded as having been translated in 472, which would have been well before Mihirakula's audience with Song Yun and even the dates given by Yamada for Mihirakula's reign (r. 502-542); the appearance of this name is therefore another piece of evidence which problematises the attribution and provenance of T2058 [cf. Maspero, etc.---MR]. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lai 1990] Lai, Whalen. "The Chan-ch'a ching: Religion and Magic in Medieval China." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 175-206. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. — 184, 200 n. 40-41. |
Lai cites Henri Maspero, who argues that the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 is an “apocryphon.” Lai adds that the text was composed in China after the persecution of Buddhism under the N. Wei, in response to Cui Hao’s accusation that there was “no record to verify that there was a Buddha or living Buddhist tradition in India.” The text lists patriarchs who have been terminated by persecution, which Lai suggests “may have some basis in history;” citing Maspero 1911. Lai also argues that the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan contains a legend which is “the most specific archetype” of the divination practice of the Zhancha shan'e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經 T839 (which Lai argues is a Chinese composition). The legend explains a practice where one marks every intention with white or black stones signifying good or bad mental intent. The aim of this exercise is to purify the mind by physically changing the ratio of colours. Lai cites Morita Ryūsen to claim that this practice is suggestive of a similar practice among Neo-Confucians, using beans. Morita Ryūsen, Shaku makaenron no kenkyū (Kyoto: Bunseido, 1935), 728-729. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Maspero 1911] Maspero, Henri. “Sur la date et l’authenticité du Fou fa tsang yin yüan tchouan.” Mélanges d’Indianisme offerts par ses éleves à M. Sylvian Levi, 129-149. Paris, 1911. |
The traditional date for the "translation" of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058, based upon CSZJJ, is 472. Various citations of the text by Tang authors match the extant text. However, Maspero was unable to find any citations earlier than the Tang. The oldest known citations from the text are found in the Yiqiejing yinyi 一切經音義 of Xuanying 玄應, dating to 649 [the work that was subsequently extended by Huilin 慧琳 under the same title, T2128]. The only information about T2058 prior to the Tang is in the catalogues. CSZJJ says it was translated in 472 by Jijiaye 吉迦夜, but also says that this text was lost in Sengyou's time. In LDSBJ, this title appears twice, once ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜, and once to Tanyao 曇曜. LDSBJ refers to Daohui's 道慧 Song Qi lu 宋齊錄. Maspero states that the notices of CSZJJ and LDSBJ are clearly identical, but significantly, that CSZJJ does not mention Huilin's Song Qi lu as its source. Further, Fei Changfang says elsewhere that he was unable to obtain a copy of the Song Qi lu, and so never actually saw it. Later, Fei also says that he derives some of his information from the "catalogue of Bodhiruci", but according to Maspero, this too is a catalogue that he never directly saw [T2034:49.127c1117]. Maspero also discusses other problems in the evidence of the catalogues. Maspero's paper centres on his identification of a Chinese sources for much of T2058, especially the Aśokāvadāna 阿育王傳 T2042, to which he traces numerous passages, but also including the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya 十誦律 T1435, 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047, and 提婆菩薩傳 T2048. Maspero states the various stories about Upagupta contained in the text were selected and copied, with slight abrigdement, from T2042, and even appear in the same order (with one exception). Maspero considers three possible scenarios to explain this pattern in the evidence: 1. Heavy later interpolation in a genuine translation text; 2. the text was compiled in China by Jijiaye and Tanyao; 3. the original was lost and the present text is a "fake" dating to the sixth century. He prefers the theory that it was composed in the sixth century. He says that even passages for which he was unable to identify a source are nonetheless not necessarily an original translation; he argues, for instance, that a passage about Kumāralabdha was probably drawn from a lost Chinese original dating to the Jin, on the basis of an apparent interlinear gloss stranded in the main text, reading 晉言. Maspero argues that the hypothesis of a sixth-century date is supported by the presence of wording that indicates debts to a second version of the Aśokāvadāna, translated in 512, viz. the 阿育王經 T2043. The situation is further complicated by the fact that one tradition, as reported in KYL, holds that the supposed translation by Jijiaye and Tanyao was the second translation, the first having been by Baoyun 寶雲 (付法藏經六卷(初出見李廓錄), T2154:55:5.525c3; also 649c22-23). [MR: This tradition goes back as far as the 古今譯經圖紀, T2151:55.362a16, and is also found in DZKZM.] Maspero thinks on these grounds that we must suppose that there did originally exist a translation text by this title, but that it was lost, and subsequently replaced in the canon by the present Chinese composition. Maspero mentions that Qisong 契嵩 (1007-1072) also regarded T2058 as an apocryphon, though he had an ulterior motive, because he wanted to discredit the lineage that was propounded by a rival branch of his sect on the basis of T2058. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Young 2008] Young, Stuart H. "Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China." PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2008. — 109-116 |
Young claims that the 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 represents a “radical shift” in Chinese understandings of Buddhist history and the function of Indian patriarchs. The text is the “earliest full blown Chinese Buddhist history of the Indian patriarchate” which recounts the transmission of the Dharma along a line of patriarchs extending from Śākyamuni. It also introduced the role of counsellor and subjugator of Indian kings to three of the patriarchs: Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva (this connection to pious kingship betraying a strong affinity with 阿育王傳 T2042). Young opines that while their changes of roles and subsequent extensions of their biographies cannot be attested in prior sources, we cannot prove that they originated entirely with this text. T2058 was first mentioned by Sengyou in 515, where it was attributed to *Kiṅkara 吉迦夜. However, Young notes [as Maspero had already pointed out before him] that the content of the text is not verified in other sources until the mid-seventh century. This, among other discrepancies, led Maspero to doubt that the extant text is the same as that listed by Sengyou, and to argue that the extant text is a Chinese composition dated “around the middle or end of the sixth century” (Maspero 1911, 149). Young critiques Maspero’s claim, but suggests that his work demonstrates that even the Buddhist cataloguers were confused by the conflicting evidence, and thus warns that we must be cautious regarding the provenance of the text. Young goes on to criticise prior attempts to associate the text with the 446 persecution of Buddhism. He cites Strickmann who wrote: “There is no need to search for contemporary incidents to explain the content of … Buddhist apocalyptic writings” (Strickmann 1990, 88). Furthermore, Young challenges the designation of T2059 as an “apocalyptic text.” He concludes that while the biographies of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva contained in the text do not allow us to clearly date the text, “we can see that this portion of the text was not derived from the canonical biographies later ascribed to Kumārajīva, as scholars commonly assume.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Chen 2005] Chen, Jinhua. "Some Aspects of the Buddhist Translation Procedure in Early Medieval China: With Special References to a Longstanding Misreading of a Keyword in the Earliest Extant Buddhist Catalogue in East Asia." Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662. — 657-661 |
|
Chen lists thirty-three texts discussed in Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji for which dates are given, but where those dates cannot be corroborated by any "translation documents" [meaning primary sources discussing circumstances etc. of translation, such as colophons]: Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等般泥洹經 T378; Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 675 |
Sakaino conjectures that perhaps Jijiaye 吉迦夜 was the translator 譯 of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058, and Tanyao 曇曜 was the oral interpreter. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 675 |
KYL lists the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 twice, ascribing it once to Tanyao 曇曜 (with the title Fu fazang zhuan 付法藏傳) and once to Jijiaye 吉迦夜 (with the title Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳). KYL adds to the entry for the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan a note that the text is identical to that translated by Zhiyan of the Song and Tanyao of the Wei 與宋智嚴魏曇曜出者同本 (T2154 [LV], 540a9). Sakaino claims that Zhisheng probably just followed LDSBJ stating that the Tanyao version was a retranslation 重譯, and that it is improbable that Tanyao and Jijiaye translated the same text separately. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 675 |
According to Sakaino, the Shi Lao zhi 釋老志 states that the contranslator of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 T2058 with Tanyao 曇曜 was not Jijiaye 吉迦夜, but Changnayeshe 常那耶舍 (which Sakaino reconstructs as *Jnānayaśas). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2012] Palumbo, Antonello. "Models of Buddhist Kingship in Early Medieval China." In Zhonggu shidai de liyi, zongjiao yu zhidu 中古時代的禮儀、宗教與制度 (New Perspectives on Ritual, Religion and Institution in Medieval China), edited by Yu Xin 余欣, 287-338. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, 2012. — 311 |
Palumbo argues that the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 contains “extended textual parallels” with the Ayu wang zhuan 阿育王傳 (Aśokarājāvadāna) T2042. Palumbo cites Maspéro who has previously argued that T2058 was a sixth century “forgery” which lifted text from T2042. However, Palumbo suggests either that the Ayu wang zhuan is based on T2058, or that both texts draw on a common source. Citing Maspero (1911). Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 543-545 |
LDSBJ newly ascribes the Fu fazang zhuan 付法藏傳 (cf. T2058) and the Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 (cf. X15) to Baoyun 寶雲. Sakaino claims that both are highly dubious. Both titles are also listed as the works of Tanyao 曇曜 in LDSBJ, which, Sakaino claims, suggests that there was some confusion in recording those titles. The title Jing du sanmei jing appears in the “recompiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 of CSZJJ with the alternate title Jing du jing 淨度經. LDSBJ lists three translations of the 淨度三昧經: in addition to that ascribed to Baoyun, one ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴, and another ascribed to Tanyao 曇曜. LDSBJ lists also three translations of the Fu fazang zhuan: in addition to that ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲, one ascribed to Tanyao 曇曜, and another ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜. Sakaino lists several external reasons to conclude that it is hard to believe any of those ascriptions. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. |
Abstract: "This study examines the biography of the monk Baoyun 寶雲 (376?-449) and lists all the titles of the translation projects in which Baoyun was involved. By comparing the information provided by different Buddhist catalogues, several discrepancies between the information on Baoyun provided by Buddhist bibliographer Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) and by later accounts became evident. This study contextualizes the life of Baoyun in a broader historical perspective and presents the life of a monk who was a companion of Faxian 法顯 (336?-422) in his famous journey to the west, fluent in Indic languages, and a proficient translator." Lettere argues that we can see a gradual process by which the true scope of Baoyun's activities as a translator, originally represented rather clearly by Sengyou and the sources he collects (CSZJJ), was already diminished or undermined by Huijiao (GSZ), Fei Zhangfang (LCSBJ), and Fajing; and also seems to have suffered from being overshadowed by the reputation and legends that accrued to the personality of Faxian. In the course of her treatment of biographical and other external sources on Baoyun (CSZJJ, GSZ, and documents like prefaces), Lettere notes evidence that Baoyun might have been the principal translator for the following works: T192 (Lettere holds unequivocally that this work is "erroneously attributed to Dharmakṣema/Tan Wuchen 曇無讖", following Willemen 2009 [in error this reference is given as Chen Jinhua]: xiv-xvi); a "new Sukhāvatī" 新無量壽 [sic, for *Amitāyus] [Lettere's citation of studies by Nogami 1950, Gotō 2006, 2007, and Nattier 2003 implies that she identifies this title with T360 -- MR]; with Zhiyan, according to Sengyou's CSZJJ, three titles: the Puyao jing 普耀經, the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經, and the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 [cf. for the last two titles respectively Avaivartikacakra 廣博嚴淨經 T268, and Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590 -- MR]; the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda 勝鬘經 [T353]; the Za’ahan jing 雜阿含經 (*Saṃyuktāgama) and the Fagu jing 法鼓經 [Lettere again does not go into the problem of identification with extant texts, but cf. Saṃyuktāgama T99 and the *Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra T270 -- MR]; a Mahāparinirvāṇa in six fascicles 六卷泥洹 [cf. T7 -- MR]. [To this list we should add the Laṅkāvatāra T670; Lettere omits to list it, but cf. 後於丹陽郡譯出勝鬘楞伽經, GSZ T2059 (L) 344b3, which in fact comprises two titles, the Śrīmālādevī and the Laṅkāvatāra; cf. Lettere 265 n. 9 -- MR.] Lettere also notes evidence that Baoyun may have composed a lost travelogue of his journeys, entitled Youlü waiguo 遊履外國. In LDSBJ, two titles are added to Baoyun's credit; Fufa zang jing 付法藏經 [cf. T2058] and Jingdu sanwei jing 淨度三昧經 [cf. X15]; and an *Akṣayamatinirdeśa 無盡意菩薩 to the joint translatorship of Baoyun and Zhiyan [cf. T397(12)]. Lettere notes that the poor reputation of Fei as a cataloguer makes these ascriptions less plausible. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Young 2015] Young, Stuart. Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2015. — 73-79 |
Young reports that later sources, beginning from the 寶林傳 Baolin zhuan, often set the date of the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058 before the persecution of Buddhism under the Northern Wei in the mid-fifth century. On such accounts, the text was lost for a time, and then reconstructed by 曇曜 Tanyao and his associates. Young summarises the theories of a number of studies in connection with such traditions. Linda Penkower (2000, 250) and Whalen Lai (1990, 201n40) both speculate that T2058 served to rebut charges by the Confucian official 崔浩 Cuihao that the continuity of Indian Buddhism could not be verified. Matsuyama Sadayoshi 松山貞好 (2009a, 208; 2009b, 806) argues that the Indian lineage of T2058 served to legitimate Chinese Buddhism and to warn against those in power with stories of their anti-Buddhist predecessors. Henri Maspero (1911, 142-146) maintains that T2058 was revised in the sixth century to include mention of Mihirakula, who persecuted Buddhists in India until his defeat around 530. Wendi Adamek (2007, 101) views T2058 as a product of “final age pessimism” stemming from sociopolitical instability after the fall of the Northern Wei in 534. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|