| Identifier | T0224 [T] |
| Title | 道行般若經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛/Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Co-translator 共譯 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖; Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛/Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 [Kamata 1982] |
| Translator 譯 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Zürcher 1991] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [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 |
[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). — 35, 332 n. 92 |
Zürcher argues that the Daoxing (bore) jing 道行般若經 (Aṣṭasāhaśrikā prajñāpāramitā) T224 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokakṣema was more than “hypothetical” (the second being T417/418) on the basis of its record in CSZJJ II, an anonymous colophon (ib. VII 47.3.4 sqq.), and Dao’an’s preface to his commentary on the Daoxing jing. Dao’an recorded that T224 was based on a manuscript brought to Luoyang by Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛. Zürcher confirms Dao’an’s record by arguing that the use of ji 齎 "bring" implies that the text was translated from a manuscript rather than an oral recitation. Zürcher adds that daoxing, “the practice of the way,” is a translation of Sarvākarajñatācarya, the name of the first chapter. He also notes that the earliest catalogues “mention another Han time version of the Aṣṭsahāśrikā [ascribed to *Lokakṣema or Zhu Shuofo] … which among students of Buddhist bibliography has given rise to the wildest speculations.” He cites Sakaino Kōyō, as summarised by Matsumoto Tokumyo, Die Prajñāpāramitā-literatur, 1932, pp. 18-19. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Goble 2012] Goble, Geoffrey. “Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra and the Ruling Elite.” PhD dissertation, Indiana University, 2012. — 74 n. 87 |
In his Jin’gangding jing yujie shibahui zhigui 金剛頂經瑜伽十八會指歸 T869 Amoghavajra claimed that the Diamond Pinnacle Sūtra was composed of eighteen component texts, referred to as “assemblies” (hui 會). Goble cites Giebel who has identified several extant texts related to the assemblies mentioned by Amoghavajra. These include Yiqie rulai jin’gang sanye zuishang mimi dajiaowang jing 一切如來金剛三業最上祕密大教王經 T885 and Foshuo zuishang genben dalejin’gang bukong sanmei dajiaowang jing 佛說最上根本大樂金剛不空三昧大教王經 T244. Goble stresses that these texts do not correspond to the assemblies discussed by Amoghavajra but “seem only to be related to those assemblies.” Giebel, Rolf W. "The Chin-Kang-Ting Ching Yu-Ch'ieh Shih-Pa-Hui Chih-Kuei: An Annoted Translation." Naritasan Bukkyo Kenkyujo Kiyo (Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies) 18 (1995). Giebel’s analyses are informed by Tanaka Kimiaki’s 田中公明 Mandara Ikonorojī イコノロジー (Maṇḍala Iconology). Tokyo: Heikō Shuppansha 平河出版社, 1987. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Harrison 1990] Harrison, Paul. The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present: An Annotated English Translation of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Saṃmukhāvasthita-Samādhi-Sūtra. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990. — 236 |
In his discussion of the stylistic characteristics of T418, Harrison takes the Daoxing banruo jing 道行般若經 T224 as a touchstone because “it is the only text that can be regarded with certainty as a genuine product of his [*Lokakṣema’s] translation work.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1991] Zürcher, Erik. "A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts." in Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen, eds. From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion in Honour of Prof. Jan Yün-hua, 277-304. Oakville, Canada: Mosaic Press, 1991. — 278 |
Zürcher concludes that the Daoxing (bore) jing 道行般若經 (Aṣṭasāhaśrikā prajñāpāramitā) T224 is a “landmark;” that is, an “unquestionably authentic product” of *Lokakṣema. His confidence in this text's attribution relies on Dao'an's catalogue, Dao'an's preface to the sūtra which marks it as *Lokakṣema's work, and a colophon from the year 179 which supplies details on the circumstances of the translation and the names of collaborators. On top of this strong external evidence, Zürcher subjects T224 to “terminological and stylistic analysis” which confirms distinctive features peculiar to *Lokakṣema's team. According to Zürcher, T224 is one of a group of twenty-nine texts which can be considered “genuine” Han translations. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Karashima 2013b] Karashima Seishi 辛島静志. “Was the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Compiled in Gandhāra in Gāndhārī?” ARIRIAB 16 (2013): 171-188. — 182-183 |
A short passage T224 (VIII) 476b17-24 is not found in other versions of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā. Yūichi Kajiyama argued in 1976 that this passage must have been composed by *Lokakṣema. Karashima disagrees. He thinks, rather, that at the original point of the text's composition, which he thinks took place in Gandhāra, the image cult was new, and the authors of the text were critical. Subsequently, Karashima speculates, the image cult became so normalised that it could not really be criticised, and the passage was excised. 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. — 101-102 |
|
According to Sakaino, Dao’an endorsed twelve texts as the works of *Lokakṣema 支讖, seven of which are extant. 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. — 106-107, 306 |
Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛 appears in CSZJJ and Dao’an, and is also called Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 in GSZ, and catalogues since LDSBJ. Sakaino states that *Lokakṣema worked on his Aṣṭasāhasrikā 道行般若經 T224 twice: once as the interpreter/oral translator 傳語, when Zhu Shuofo was responsible for “handling the text” 執本; subsequently, since the original text was then incomplete, *Lokakṣema worked on the text again when the complete version became available. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 158-159 |
According to Kamata, CSZJJ mentions a Dao xing jing 道行經 (Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā) translated by Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, though no such text was mentioned by Dao’an. Later, LDSBJ and other catalogues listed the Zhu Shuofo version as a different text from *Lokakṣema’s. Kamata states that it is clear that there was only ever one Dao xing jing 道行經, that translated by *Lokakṣema T224, so the one ascribed to Zhu Shuofo must refer to the same text, probably considering the role of Zhu Shuofo as co-translator. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. |
For the 異出經緣 of CSZJJ, LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8 reports a different number of texts and fascicles to that found in our present CSZJJ. Naitō suggests that the difference in numbering between the LDSBJ report and the transmitted CSZJJ lies in the last 9 texts in the list. [T2145 (LV) 15a8-25 --- MR.] This list of nine texts also differs in form from the bulk of the section that precedes it. The preceding 34 texts in the same list are divided in an orderly manner into sūtra-vinaya-śāstra, but these nine items mess up that categorisation [all are sūtras again --- MR.] Annotations to earlier items give number of fascicles, but here, only names of translators are given. Further, there are items among the nine that were already recorded in the preceding, more orderly list of 34, but which are here recorded again with errors. On this basis, Naitō proposes that these 9 items are a later addition, added in a rather sloppy manner. This section also features the 長者須達經 of *Guṇavr̥ddhi 求那毘地, which appears in a list at the end of the 撰出經論 that Naitō also suspects of being a later addition. He therefore proposes that this section was added at the same time as that list, sometime after 504. The titles affected by this hypothesis are: 成具光明經 For the same list, Su Jinren (20, without reference to Naitō) also points out some of the same problems. Su does not believe that this list could have been added to the text by Sengyou himself, partly on the basis of the fact that the annotations appear to reflect too much ignorance. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang 2016] Fang Guangchang 方广锠. "Dao xing banre jing yiben kaoshi"《道行般若经》译本考释. Zongjiaoxue yanjiu 宗教学研究 2016, no. 3: 88-97. |
Fang Guangchang argues that there were two versions of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā as translated under the title Banre dao xing jing 般若道行經 throughout history: a version in one fascicle 一卷本, translated by Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 alone; and a ten fascicle version 十卷本translated by Lokakṣema 支讖, also working alone. Fang thus argues against conventional assertions either that Zhu Foshuo never translated the one fascicle version, or that the ten fascicle version is the outcome of collaboration between Lokakṣema and Zhu Foshuo. Throughout his article, Fang mainly endeavors to elaborate on three questions, namely: 1) Did the one fascicle version ever exist? 2) Is the ten fascicle version a collaboration by Lokakṣema and Zhu Foshuo? 3) Should the preface to the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā written by Dao’an be associated with the one fascicle version or the ten fascicle version? Fang first lists various opinions on related topics given by different scholars. 1) Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 and Yao Weiqun 姚衛群 deny that Zhu Foshuo ever translated a one fascicle version. 2) Ren Jiyu 任繼愈 acknowledges that a one fascicle version once existed, but doesn’t mention to whom it should be attributed. He also considers that it was an excerpt from the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā. 3) Lü Cheng 呂澂 and Guo Peng 郭朋 purport that the ten fascicle version was translated by Lokakṣema, while Tang Yongtong, Yao Weiqun and Zürcher tend to believe that it was the product of a collaboration between Lokakṣema and Zhu Foshuo. 4) All scholars maintain that Dao’an’s preface was written for the ten fascicle version. Fang then enlarges upon the problematic one fascicle version. He agrees with what Tang Yongtong has proposed: In the catalog compiled by Dao’an, there is no record of the one fascicle version translated by Zhu Foshuo. Nevertheless, Fang believes that this does not justify the conclusion that the one fascicle version never existed at all. Fang purports that when Sengyou added this one fascicle version to his catalog, he actually had this version physically at his disposal. He gives three reasons for this conclusion: 1) If Sengyou never laid eyes on one fascicle version, he would have marked it with 今闕 (currently missing), but it is not the case with one fascicle version, so he must have seen it in person; 2) Sengyou recorded both the one fascicle version and ten fascicle version in his catalog, so he regarded these two as alternate versions of the same text; 3) in describing the translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, both GSZ and CSZJJ first mention that Lokakṣema translated sutras including the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, and then mention in the next paragraph that Zhu Foshuo also brought the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā to China and had it translated. These descriptions imply that Lokakṣema and Zhu Foshuo rendered the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā separately, which also tallies with what Sengyou recorded in Fascicles 2 and 5 of CSZJJ. Fang also holds that the preface Dao’an wrote is for the one fascicle version. According to Fang, Dao’an explicitly commented on the quality of the translations of Zhu Foshuo and *Mokṣala 無羅叉 . After remarking that “the two masters illuminated even the remotest parts of the great wisdom" 二家所出，足令大智煥爾闡幽, he went on, “So did Lokaṣema’s full translation" 支讖全本，其亦應然. Thus, Fang deduces that Dao’an clearly differentiates Zhu Foshuo’s translation from that of Lokakṣema. In addition, Fang suggests that this preface was written for Zhu Foshuo’s one fascicle version—in contrast to Dao’an’s attitude towards Mokṣala’s translation, he criticizes by saying that neither the source text nor the translation of the one fascicle version were up to par, but ends by saying that 二家所出，足令大智煥爾闡幽, which implies that Dao'an had annotated Zhu Fushuo’s one fascicle version in the light of Mokṣala’s translation, so that together, the two translations make the 大智煥爾闡幽. Lastly, Fang also corroborates his claim that ten fascicle version was translated by Lokakṣema alone with reference to the following facts: 1) in Sengyou’s catalog, there are different entries for the one fascicle version and the ten fascicle version; 2) inferring from the manner of speaking in the preface written by Dao’an, Lokakṣema and Zhu Foshuo translated independently; 3) if the ten fascicle version was rendered in collaboration by Lokakṣema and Zhu Foshuo, this fact should have been mentioned in GSZ and CSZJJ, where their collaboration in producing the Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra 般舟三昧經 is depicted. Fang ventures the opinion that most scholars believe Lokakṣema and Zhu Foshuo collaborated in translating the ten fascicle version because they are misled by the anonymous colophon to the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, which, Fang suspects, is only a redaction of the colophon to the Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra, forged by some later person and interpolated into CSZJJ. Fang therefore concludes that 1) Zhu Foshuo translated the one fascicle version by himself; 2) Lokakṣema translated the ten fascicle version alone; 3) Dao’an's preface belongs to the one fascicle version rendered by Zhu Foshuo. Entry author: Tianran Wang |
|
|
|
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. — 5 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the varying frequency of particles found in different chapters of the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 may be attributed to various factors, such as different scribes, collaboration among multiple translators, or revisions etc. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de Daoxing banre jing wenben xingcheng de tanjiu” 基於語氣助詞的《道行般若經》文本形成探究. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2 (2022): 84–100. 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. — 5 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Nattier argues that although the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 is considered a representative translation by Lokakṣema, certain chapters within it may have been modified by others. They refer to Nattier Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008: 88 (f. 188). Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|