| Identifier | T0226 [T] |
| Title | 摩訶般若鈔經 [T] |
| Date | 382 [Dao'an T226 Preface] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | Dharmapriya, 曇摩蜱 [Er Qin lu; Fei 597] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmapriya, 曇摩蜱; Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [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 |
[Er Qin lu] Sengrui 僧叡. Er Qin lu 二秦錄. |
Fei Zhangfang says that in the translation of a text probably corresponding to the present T226, *Dharmapriya 曇摩蜱 "handled the Indic text", and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 did the actual work of translation. He also gives a date of 382 建元十八年 for the translation. For the date, he cites the Er Qin lu, supposedly by Sengrui; it is not clear whether he wants to claim that the ascription information also derives from this (ostensible) source; it is notable that whereas the interlinear note with the date, directly citing the Er Qin lu, gives the date in terms of a Qin reign error, the following note, giving the ascription, speaks instead in terms of the E. Jin emperor Xiaowu 晉孝武帝. 摩訶鉢羅般若波羅蜜經五卷(建元十八年譯或七卷見僧叡二秦錄) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 10b1-4 |
In his "newly compiled catalogue of sūtras and śāstras", Sengyou records that T226 was translated by Zhu Fonian, with *Dharmapriya 曇摩蜱 holding the Indic text. 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄五卷(一名長安品經或云摩訶般若波羅蜜經偽秦符堅建元十八年出) [Note that this contradicts the information in Dao'an's preface to T226, which states that the translation was done by Fohu = *Buddharakṣ(it)a(?). This may well mean that an error on Sengyou's part is the source of the ascription to Zhu Fonian, repeated by later catalogues such as LJDSB --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Dao'an T226 Preface] Dao'an 道安. Preface to the Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄序. — via CSZJJ. Also cited and discussed in Kajiyoshi (1944/1980): 68. |
*Dharmapriya(?) 曇摩蜱 "held the [foreign] text"; Fohu 佛護 (*Buddharakṣ[it]a?) made the translation; 慧進 was the amanuensis 筆受. Places in which the text was the same as Mokṣala's Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 放光般若經 T221 and Dharmarakṣa’s Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 光讚經 T222 were not re-translated. Where those earlier translations were mistaken, they were corrected, and portions that were missing were supplemented. In places where there was more than one possible interpretation and it was not possible to decide what was correct, both were kept. 天竺沙門曇摩蜱執本。佛護為譯。對而撿之。慧進筆受。與放光光讚同者。無所更出也。其二經譯人所漏者。隨其失處稱而正焉。其義異不知孰是者。輒併而兩存之。往往為訓其下。凡四卷。其一紙二紙異者出別為一卷合五卷也。 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2017a] Radich, Michael. “On the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 as a Work of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念.” Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 30 (2017): 1-31. — 23-24 |
In the course of a study whose primary focus is an attempt to argue in favour of reascription of the *Ekottarikāgama T125 to Zhu Fonian, Radich mentions that the numerous markers of Zhu Fonian style he uncovered in the course of that study (137 markers, occurring a total of 6,200 times in the Ekottarikāgama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus of DĀ, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464) appear very seldom, if ever, in T226, T1485, and T388. This provides further, unsystematic support for arguments in prior scholarship that these three texts are in fact not by Zhu Fonian, despite traditional ascriptions or (in the case of T388), suggestions by other scholars. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2017a] Radich, Michael. “On the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 as a Work of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念.” Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 30 (2017): 1-31. — 5-6 |
Radich briefly surveys a range of scholarship suggesting that T226 may not be by Zhu Fonian, and T309, T384, and T385 are probably Chinese compositions, and so probably should be (at least provisionally) excluded from Zhu Fonian's authentic translation corpus. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 |
[Hirakawa 1963] Hirakawa Akira. “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stūpas.” Translated by Unno Taisetsu. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (1963): 57-106. — 84 n. 150 |
Hirakawa states that this text is in fact by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, citing Kajiyoshi 1944 (1980), 77 ff. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 82-83 |
A “smaller [Prajñāpāramitā] sūtra” 小品經 is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in LDSBJ. Ōno argues that this text has survived in the present canon as T226, where it is misidentified, as the end product of a series of confusions and errors. The Taishō mistakenly identifies this text with the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經 in five juan (T226, ascribed to *Dharmapriya 曇摩蜱 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念). Ōno states that a Mohe banre chao jing [mentioned in historical sources as translated by *Dharmapriya and Fohu 佛護] cannot in fact have been the present T226, since the preface to the Dharmapriya/Fohu translation by Dao’an (in CSZJJ, T2145 [LV] 52b8-c26) records that the text was a “larger” Prajñapāramitā 大品經, while T226 is in fact a “smaller” 小品. [This would already imply that the ascription of the present T226 to Dharmapriya and Zhu Fonian is erroneous --- MR.] Dao’an was involved in the translation of the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經, and he gives the title as 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄. However, the extant Mohe banre chao jing T226 does not contain the term boluore 鉢羅若 [for *prajñā] at all, instead using only banre 般若 throughout. [Ōno clearly intends to imply by this that T226 cannot be the text Dao’an knew and helped to produce. In fact, however, 鉢羅若, in that exact orthography, is extremely rare, and excluding false hits across word boundaries, first occurs, in translation literature, in a single transcription of a dhāraṇī in *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta’s T993 (XIX) 510c9; and thereafter, always as part of the longer term 三摩地鉢羅若, a handful of times in Xuanzang’s T1605 and T1606; it is mentioned once by Jizang, so before or under the Sui, T1696 [XXXIII] 63c28. This surely introduces the possibility that it is some sort of later scribal error in the transmission of Daoan’s preface. --- MR.] Ōno claims that, judging from its vocabulary, T226 is actually the “retranslation of the smaller [Prajñāpāramitā] sūtra 更出小品經 in seven juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Dao’an’s catalogue. Ōno conjectures that the confusion about the nature of the text was probably partly occasioned by the loss of two juan from the text that became T226 (which now has five juan), or the fact that they were perhaps missing in the first place. This relative brevity in the text may have made it seem somehow suitable to identify it with an “excerpted” or “abridged” version of the sūtra 抄. The mistaken identification of the text has a long history. It is already seen in CSZJJ, and something corresponding to the 經抄 has always been recorded in catalogues as an extant text, but with varying titles. The title even differs between different printed editions of the canon. To add further to the confusion, there is another misconception in traditional catalogues about this scripture. The title “lesser [Prajnāpāramitā] sūtra” 小品經, as ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, was listed as an extant “newer Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāparamitā” 新道行經 from Fajing onwards, but the text in question was in fact the “smaller Prajñāpāramitā” 小品般若經 of Kumārajīva (小品般若波羅蜜經 T227). Fajing records: 新道行經十卷(一名新小品經或七卷)(晉太始年竺法護譯) (T2146 [LV] 119b4). Catalogues down to DZKZM followed Fajing in this regard, but KYL pointed out that the text should be re-ascribed to Kumārajīva, commenting (in a note to the title) 新道行經:撿諸藏本並與小品般若文句全同者其本錯也。護公所譯新道行經時無其本(承聞東都有護譯本尋之未獲) ( T2154 [LV] 664a10-12). Jingtai and DTNDL did not notice that the two titles 新道行經 and 小品般若經 referred to the same text, although both of them recorded that the two were the same length, viz., 154 sheets. Ōno points out that this confusion occurred due to the fact that Kumārajīva’s “smaller Prajñāpāramitā” 小品般若 was in seven juan, and was also called the “new version of the lesser [sūtra]” 新小品. The name “retranslation of the smaller sūtra” 更出小品經 was used by Dao’an and Sengyou just for convenience. Ōno uses the name “smaller sūtra” 小品經 following LDSBJ and DTNDL. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Kajiyoshi 1944 (1980)] Kajiyoshi (1944/1980) – Kajiyoshi Kōun 梶芳光運. Genshi hannya kyō no kenkyū, sono ichi: Daijō Bukkyō no seiritsushiteki kenkyū原始般若経の研究 その一 大乗仏教の成立史的研究. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin 1980 [1944]. — 68-76 |
As the upshot of a complex discussion, Kajiyoshi concludes that the most satisfactory hypothesis is that this is in fact a translation by Dharmarakṣa (as had apparently been suggested earlier by Suzuki Munetada 鈴木宗忠, though so far as I could determine, Kajiyoshi does not give a reference to the publication where Suzuki made this suggestion). In sum, the reasoning that leads him to this conclusion is as follows. 1. A preface by Dao'an, preserved in CSZJJ, to a text with the very similar title of Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 states that text was translated in 382 by Dharmamitra 曇摩蜱 [*Dharmapriya?], who "handled the [foreign] text"; Fohu 佛護, who made the translation; and Huijin 慧進 was the amanuensis 筆受. However, this text is not extant, as was shown by Zhisheng in KYL. 2. Kajiyoshi then shows that despite the similarity in their names, Fohu and [Zhu] Fonian, to whom the translation is attributed alongside Dharmamitra [*Dharmapriya?] in the later record and present canon, are in fact different figures. He cites to this end an account of the translation of the *Abhidharmavibhāṣā (i.e. 鞞婆沙論 T1547 translated by *Saṃghabhūti/Saṃghabhadra 僧伽跋澄 et al. in 383) from the end of the CSZJJ biography of Samghabhadra, which states that two separate translations were made of the text, the first with Fohu acting as the actual translator 宣譯, and the second one with Zhu Fonian acting in the same capacity 宣譯. Thus, the same note handles these two figures as separate individuals; T2145:55.99a25-b5. (The same note states that not much more is known about Fohu/*Buddharakṣa; 99b7-9.) Dao'an's preface to the same text, preserved in CSZJJ, echoes this information; T2145:55.73c3-8. In fact, in an anonymous preface to the 四阿鋡暮抄 T1505 preserved in CSZJJ, Fohu and Zhu Fonian are even mentioned as having worked together on the translation of the text 鳩摩羅佛提執胡]本佛念佛護為譯; T2145:55.64c11-15. Thus, the ascription of T226 to Zhu Fonian cannot be because the Fohu of Dao’an’s 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 is an alternate name for Zhu Fonian, and the identification of the translator as Zhu Fonian is likely to be an error. Thus, in its specific title, the actual identify of the translator, and content, the Mohe buluore boluomi jing chao to which Dao'an wrote his preface was clearly a different text from the extant T226. The confusion between Fohu and Zhu Fonian seems to start with Sengyou. Elsewhere in CSZJJ, in the 新集經論錄, Sengyou writes: 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄五卷(一名長安品經或云摩訶般若波羅蜜經偽秦符堅建元十八年出)...天竺沙門曇摩蜱執胡大品本。竺佛念譯出; T2145:55.10b1-4. Subsequent catalogues (Fajing, LDSBJ, Jingtai, DTNDL, KYL) gradually conflate various items of information about several texts into a single notice, which is taken by most bibliographers (with the partial exception of Zhisheng) as referring to T226. Key moments are: 1. In Fajing, and then from Jingtai onwards, the old and distinctive transcription 鉢羅若[波羅蜜] is dropped from the title in favour of the more "standardised" 般若[波羅蜜] (the only exception to this trend is Fei Changfang's LDSBJ). 2. From Jingtai onward, a new alternate title is associated with the text, namely Xupti pin 須菩提品 (“Subhūti chapter/version”). 3. In some of the titles reported for the text, the character chao 鈔/抄 is dropped. 4. The number of juan ascribed to the text varies between 7 juan and 10 juan. As a result of these various shifts, by the time of Zhisheng's KYL, the text reported in Dao'an's notice had been completely conflated with the extant T226, an error which Zhisheng makes a partial attempt to correct. Having thus set aside our extant T226 as the text referred to in Dao'an's notice, Kajiyoshi then attempts to determine what text it might refer to instead. 3. Sengyou's list of alternate translations of Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, T2145:55.14a1-4, contains two successive items: a) 朱士行出放光經二十卷一名舊小品; b) 竺法護更出小品經七卷. Kajiyoshi points out that because notice of the item attributed to Dharmarakṣa follows immediately upon the preceding notice about the 放光經, in which the phrase xiaopin 小品 (≈ "shorter version") clearly refers to the Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, we might naturally take that phrase in the Dharmarakṣa notice to also refer to Dharmarakṣa's (extant) Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, 光讚經 T222. However, he shows that in fact, Fajing refers to an Aṣṭasāhasrikā by Dharmarakṣa as a "new xiaopin 小品": 新道行經十卷(一名新小品經或七卷)(晉太始年竺法護譯, T2146:55.119b4. LDSBJ then treats 新道行經 and the 小品 as two separate texts by Dharmarakṣa, T2034:49.109c7. Zhisheng corrects this error: 新道行經十卷(亦名小品或七卷祐云更出小品太始八年譯第四出與舊道行等同本房錄更載小品七卷誤也), T2154:55.495b6-7. Kajiyoshi notes that with regard to the number of juan, "seven" 七 is graphically easily confused with "ten" 十. He also notes that strictly speaking, it is chronologically impossible that in the Sengyou notice above, 竺法護更出小品 could mean that Dharmarakṣa could have "retranslated" "Zhu Shixing's" 朱士行 (*Mokṣala’s) Fangguang jing 放光經, since that translation actually postdates Dharmarakṣa's. He points out, further, that if the "xiaopin" ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Sengyou's notice indeed referred to the Guangzan jing 光讚經 T222, it would be odd that Zhisheng would have said that it was lost. Kajiyoshi then notes that Dao'an's list of alternate translations from the Liang 涼土異經 includes a "Xuputi pin" in 7 juan, which a note states is an alternate version of Dharmarakṣa's Daoxing jing = Aṣṭa: 須菩提品經七卷(一本云法護出道行經同本異出也), T2145:55.19a18. Finally, he shows that in Fajing, the title Xuputi pin 須菩提品 (“Subhūti chapter/version”) gets detached from Dharmarakṣa's "New Daoxing" 新道行 = Aṣṭa, and in Jingtai, it then gets attached instead to the (now modified) title derived from Dao'an's old notice about the Mohe buluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄. On this basis, Kajiyoshi suggests that a) Sengyou's 竺法護更出小品 refers to the re-translation of the Aṣṭa by Dharmarakṣa; and b) that this is probably the text that has come down to us as the extant T226, under the guise of a different title and translator attribution. 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. — 220-221 |
Sakaino argues that the extant 般若波羅蜜多鈔經 T226 should not be ascribed to Tanmopi 曇摩蜱 (*Dharmapriya?), as in traditional catalogues, on grounds of the record in earlier catalogues. His main arguments are as follows: Sengyou records a 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 in 5 juan (T2145 [LV] 10b1-4), stating that *Dharmapriya “handled the Western text of the Larger [Prajñāpāramitā] 曇摩蜱執胡大品本 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 did the translation work 譯出. Dao’an wrote a preface to this scripture. It was Zhisheng who misunderstood this 波羅密經抄 as the extant 波羅蜜鈔經, whereas in fact, the 摩訶鈢羅若波羅密經抄 ascribed to *Dharmapriya had long been lost. Sakaino adds that he discusses this 般若波羅蜜多鈔經 elsewhere in his book, without specifying where. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — v.10, 268-269 |
Watanabe Baiyu 渡辺楳雄 notes that a number of catalogues (KYL, DTNDL 内典録, the Zhenyuan lu 貞元録 and others) list this Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經 as translated by *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜱 [*Dharmapriya?] with 佛護 [sic]=佛圖羅剎 (*Dharmarakṣa [sic! for *Buddharakṣa? -- MR]) acting as 傳譯. However, modern scholars have pointed out that what *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜱 translated was the Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄, which is totally different from this Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經. Scholars have not agreed about who translated the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經, while it is widely accepted that the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經 is an alternate translation of the Xiao pin banre boluomi jing 小品般若波羅蜜經. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|