| Identifier | T0225 [T] |
| Title | 大明度經 [T] |
| Date | before 250? [Nattier 2008] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人; Zhi Qian 支謙 [Nattier 2008b] |
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 |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 54 |
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.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008b] Nattier, Jan. "Who Produced the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 (T225)? A Reassessment of the Evidence." JIABS 31, no. 1-2 (2008[2010]):295-337. — 295-299 |
Nattier briefly recapitulates the argument of Lancaster (1969), who argued that T225 was produced by An Xuan, and not by Zhi Qian. [Nattier argues persuasively against Lancaster's theory.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 50, 336 n. 137 |
|
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. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008b] Nattier, Jan. "Who Produced the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 (T225)? A Reassessment of the Evidence." JIABS 31, no. 1-2 (2008[2010]):295-337. — 304-305 n. 19 |
The commentary layer in T225A (the first chapter of T225) contains citations of several texts [with obvious implications for relative dating]. Nattier identifies these texts with T602, T708 (but Nattier cannot find a parallel in T708 to the material cited in T225A), T210, T624, and T632. Nattier notes that the same texts are cited in T1694. Of the citation of the 了本, which Nattier links to T708, Zacchetti has suggested that the text cited in T225A could actually be a commentary composed by Zhi Qian on T708, and promised a study on the topic; Zacchetti (2016): 101-102 n. 43. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2008b] Nattier, Jan. "Who Produced the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 (T225)? A Reassessment of the Evidence." JIABS 31, no. 1-2 (2008[2010]):295-337. |
Nattier divides this text into three portions for the purpose of analysis: T225A, i.e. the first chapter; the interlinear commentary contained in T225A only; and T225B, comprising the remaining chapters, which feature no commentary. In brief, Nattier argues for the following attributions of each of these three portions: T225A root text: An anonymous translator, from whom we may have no other works; T225A interlinear commentary: someone in the same Wu-kingdom community that produced T1694 (after Zacchetti's analysis of the latter text); T225B: Zhi Qian. Nattier's principal reasons are as follows: T225A root text: The vocabulary of T225A and T225B differ fundamentally and systematically, showing that both texts cannot be by the same translator. These differences include not only Buddhist terms, but also pronouns, verbs of speech, formulaic phrases, and so on. T225A contains a number of items that never appear in any securely attributed Zhi Qian text. Nattier considers the possibility that the translator could be Kang Senghui, who is also attributed with a (lost) version of the text under translation, but shows that the terminology also differs from Kang Senghui's benchmark (and only extant) text, T152. T225A interlinear commentary: Like T1694, this commentary features comments from "the master" 師云. It cites from a very similar range of texts as T1694. T225B: To establish this attribution, Nattier must argue in part against Lancaster (1969), who claimed that T225 in its entirety was translated by An Xuan and not Zhi Qian. Nattier acknowledges similarities in some terminology and phraseology between T322, An Xuan's (and Yan Fotiao's) only extant text, and T225B in particular; but she argues that these similarities are signs of the influence of T322 on Zhi Qian. She also shows that key terms differ between T322 and T225B, and further, that the basic translation policy differs --- T322 uniformly translates rather than transcribing all terms, whereas T225B does not. The attribution to Zhi Qian is clinched by the presence in T225B of several "extremely unusual items that are virtually unique to the translations of Zhi Qian" (328 ff.). T225B has the following additional characteristics: It is in considerable part a revision of *Lokakṣema's T224, and highly abbreviated in comparison to that earlier version of the same text; in particular, T225B follows the non-technical wording of T224 very closely; and T225B follows T224 closely in content. T225A, by contrast, shows no signs of reference to T224, and shows no signs of abbreviation; it also does not conform to T224 in content. T225A and T225B, despite the above-mentioned clear overall differences in the nature of the two texts, do share some rare terms. Nattier argues that this is because T225A was composed after T225B, and with some reference to it. Nattier shows that the two texts must have been amalgamated before the time of Xuanying's 玄應 Yiqie jing yin yi 一切經音義 T2128. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 237-239 |
The Wu pin 呉品 ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會 is the text also reported under the title Xiao pin 小品, which is actually a part of the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā 大明度經 T225 ascribed to Zhi Qian Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 164 n. 3 |
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T225. [T225 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 8-9 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi Guanghui argues that from the linguistic perspective, the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 T225 is closer to Zhi Qian’s translations, rather than to the Fa jing jing 法鏡經 ascribed to An Xuan. The refer to 史光輝 Shi Guanghui. “Da mingdu jing yizhe kao” 《大明度經》譯者考. Hunan keji daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南科技大學學報（社會科學版） 2 (2013): 164–166. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 9 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 T225 is closely related to Zhi Qian’s translations. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院, 2020: 94–145. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|