| Identifier | T0638 [T] |
| Title | 佛說超日明三昧經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Kawano 2006] |
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 |
[Kawano 2006] Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. Shoki kan'yaku butten no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo o chūshin to shite 初期漢訳仏典の研究 : 竺法護を中心として. Ise: Kōgakkan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2006. — Table 6, p. 87 |
|
On the basis of a complex examination of the evidence in the catalogues from CSZJJ to KYL (73-92), Kawano arrives at this corpus of 41 texts, which he thinks can most safely be ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and dated, in order to construct a basis for examining Dharmarakṣa's corpus for the development of translation idiom over the course of his career. This note lists that corpus. Kawano arrives at this corpus on the basis of the following criteria: (1) He accepts texts which were probably dated in the original CSZJJ, as represented by the Koryŏ (Kawano shows that the version of CSZJJ received via the Song[-Yuan-Ming] line of transmission includes a large set of problematic additional dates); (2) He accepts texts first dated in Fajing, as long as the date was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL; (3) He rejects texts for which a translation date first appears in LDSBJ; (4) He adds one further text (T810) that can be dated on the basis of a (very early manuscript) colophon. [Note: This list includes four (or five?) lost texts, and a couple of texts ascribed to other translators in the received canon. The number of lost texts is uncertain, because the list includes a 無量壽經, which some modern scholars would be inclined to identify with T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧---MR.] 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 |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 9c5-8 |
A CZSJJ note says that the Chao ri ming jing 超日明經 T638 (attributed in the present Taishō to Nie Chengyuan聶承遠) was initially translated by Dharmarakṣa, but revised by Nie Chengyuan because it was too prolix and repetitive 辭義煩重. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1967a] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Dō'an roku no mokurokugakuteki kenkyū 道安錄の目録学的研究." IBK 16, no. 1 (1967): 387-390. |
Naitō considers the place of Dao'an's catalogue in the history of traditional Chinese bibliography, particularly in relation to the development of classification schema. He argues that Dao'an compiled his catalogue as part of a broader attempt to recover bibliographic resources from losses resulting from political chaos. Because this was a "private" catalogue, restricted to one particular class of books, rather than an official or court project, it enjoyed greater freedom to experiment. Dao'an's concern with the authentification of texts, and his historicist attention to the circumstances under which they were produced, are both innovations against the backdrop of the bibliographic tradition prior to him, and clear results of these circumstances. As Ōchō E'nichi had already observed, Dao'an did not use classification schemas that were later to become standard, such as the "tripiṭaka" 三藏 division (sūtra, śāstra, vinaya), nor the "two vehicles" (Mahāyāna, "hīnayāna"), probably because during his years in Xiangyang, when the catalogue was composed, he had still not attained the necessary overview of canonical materials. His schema, then, was based rather on the characteristics of the translations themselves, rather than the underlying source texts: particularly the circumstances of their production in Chinese, namely, the person(s), time and place associated with the translation. This mode of classification evinces a new type of historicisation of bibliography. Another dimension of this schema was that it required a category of anonymous texts, i.e. texts for which the identity of the translator was not known. These anonymous texts Dao'an further divided into broad periods (ancient, and more recent), and according to the broad geographic region in which they were produced. The place of these developments in Chinese bibliographic history was also remarked upon by Liang Qichao. Dao'an's framework was to have a far-reaching influence, and eventually led, via the (Liu) Song cataloguer Wang Jian 王儉 and CSZJJ, to the annalistic approach of Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ. The "tripiṭaka" 三藏 division (經論律, sūtra, śāstra, vinaya) was introduced by Sengyou (in CSZJJ). This makes it difficult to discern the extent to which his work preserves the form of Dao'an's earlier work, upon which he built. In addition, Sengyou's format of listing all works of a single translator and then discussing them all in a single 解題 (總結文) was probably not inherited from Dao'an, according to Naitō, but rather, was probably Sengyou's innovation. One type of detail that allows us to draw this inference is that these summary notes sometimes mention Dao'an by name in reporting his judgments (安公云...), which would not be usual if the wording was Dao'an's own. Naitō believes that Dao'an's catalogue was, rather, most probably organised by titles annotated one by one with such information about title, length, date, translator, and any other supplemental notes as Dao'an had to hand. This format had been common practice from the Han, which means Dao'an would just have been following precedent. It is possible that the titles were indeed grouped by translator, where the translator was known, but it is unlikely that there were any summary comments of the sort seen in CSZJJ. Co-translations, Naitō believes, were probably listed only once, rather than duplicated in separate lists for each of the translators, as later became the norm. Naitō argues that when attributions for co-translations were later reduplicated for inclusion in separate lists for each of the co-translators, it sometimes had the effect of creating ghost texts and even ghost translators, as in the instance where 竺法護 and 曇摩羅察 --- both, in his view, referring to Dharmarakṣa --- were treated as separate individuals [see CSZJJ notice for the 須真天子 T588, T2145 (LV) 9c9-11]. He argues that a similar process is behind confusion about whether or not Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠 really produced a truly independent version of the 超日明三昧經 T638. Naitō remarks that if this is correct, it renders implausible the ascription to Dao'an of a remark recorded in GSZ: 案釋道安經錄云。安世高以漢桓帝建和二年至靈帝建寧中二十餘年譯出三十餘部經, T2059 (L) 324a8-10. This remarks appears to be a comment on a list of the CSZJJ type, which Naitō believes was not the form of Dao'an's catalogue; moreover, this remark is not reported at the relevant point in CSZJJ, which we would expect if it had indeed been in Dao'an's catalogue as used by Sengyou. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 9c5 |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 超日明經: 超日明經二卷(舊錄云超日明三昧經) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 7b12-9c4 |
|
In the section of the 新集經論錄, CSZJJ Fascicle 2, on Dharmarakṣa, Sengyou lists the following 32 texts for which a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 is cited in evidence in interlinear notes. He cites the Jiu lu for information about alternate titles. 賢劫經七卷, cf. T425 Sengyou also cites the Jiu lu for the 超日明經 T638, which, according to his information, was translated initially by Dharmarakṣa and then revised and abridged by Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, are listed the following titles corresponding to extant texts by Dharmarakṣa (titles in the DH mss. Bie lu are identified by the numbering given to the manuscripts in Tan 1991): T170 = Tan#3, T199 = Tan#53; possibly T222 = Tan#20 (the title given is 小品經), T310(3) = Tan#78, T317 = Tan#52, T323 = Tan#6, T324 = Tan#4, probably part of T325 = Tan#31, T338 = Tan#8, T433 = Tan#51, T460 = Tan#1 (title missing, but ms. here can be reconstructed on the basis of comparison with CSZJJ); T534 = Tan#9, T567 = Tan#11, T569 = Tan#50, T589 = Tan#10, T811 = Tan#7, T812 = Tan#2, T817 = Tan#5. In addition, the Bie lu features interlinear notes following the following titles, directly identifying Dharmarakṣa as the translator of the text(s) in question, and/or giving dates and other circumstances of translation. These notes largely correspond verbatim to similar notes given for various parts of the Dhr corpus in CSZJJ, either in Sengyou's own interlinear notes, or, in a couple of cases, in independent documents relating to the texts in question: T460 = Tan#1 (see T2145 [LV] 51b8-13); T567 = Tan#10 (CSZJJ 50b6-10); T222? = Tan#20 (CSZJJ 9b28-c4). An open question is whether such notes in the Bie lu are meant to apply only to the single title that they follow, or to groups of titles (and if they apply to groups of titles, how many titles are covered by each single note). A slightly more complex case is T638 = Tan#62, where an interlinear note already gives the information (carried elsewhere too) that the text was produced by Dharmarakṣa and then revised by Nie Chengyuan, This information corresponds closely in wording to CSZJJ 9c6-8. Dating of this Bie lu is a complex matter; see other CBC@ entries directly on these DH manuscript witnesses, citations in later catalogues etc. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following title appears: 超日月三昧經 (title #62 in the numbering given to the Bie lu manuscript in the transcription of Tan 1991). This title corresponds to T638. And indeed, the title is followed by an interlinear note: 晉武帝時沙門竺法護譯出優婆塞聶承遠治定 In CSZJJ, wording very close to this is part of an interlinear note to the same title: 晉武帝時。沙門竺法護。先譯梵文。而辭[詞SYM]義煩重。優婆塞聶承遠整理文偈刪為二卷, T2145 (LV) 9c6-8. The verbatim correspondence of wording between these two sources raises interesting but difficult questions about the chronological priority between the Bie lu and CSZJJ. A further difficult question is whether one of the two directly borrowed from the other, or whether they drew on a common third source. Consideration of these questions must take into consideration the fact that the Bie lu, as witnessed in two Dunhuang fragments, contains a number of notes displaying such correspondences to the wording of CSZJJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|