Text: T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Jing argues that the Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 was not translated by Lokakṣema. They refer to

Zhang Jing 張靜. “Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing fei Zhi Chen yi xinzheng” 《伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經》非支讖譯新證. Xiandai yuwen 現代語文 9 (2021): 4–10.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經
• People: *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T0624

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

Nattier notes that the interlinear commentary in T225A cites T624. T624 must therefore date before the production of T225A.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經
• T0626; 佛說阿闍世王經

Miyazaki studies a triad of texts ascribed to Lokakṣema: T224, T624, and T626. On the basis mainly of internal evidence, he argues that T624 and T626 were produced by the same persons or persons very closely related, or under very similar circumstances. Pointing to significant overlap in the use of rare translation terminology with T224, he argues further that the persons who produced T624 and T626 were close to the Lokakṣema group. However, he also cautions that the overall situation is complex, and that dynamics like the unfolding development over time of translation activity within the Lokakṣema group, the changing composition of the group (participation of different collaborators), and alteration in the course of transmission may also be responsible for parts of T624 and T626 as we have received them today.

Miyazaki reviews the external evidence of the catalogues, and its treatment in modern scholarship (19-22). Following Zürcher, he points out that there is some room for doubt in accounts of the text in CSZJJ. In the part of his study treating translation terminology, Miyazaki strives to follow Harrison's method, using T224 as the benchmark for the Lokakṣema style, and uses in evidence a total of 36 words and phrases, all relating to the technical Buddhist content of the texts: renderings of items such as anuttarā saṃyaksaṃbodhi, anutpattikadharmakṣānti, avaivartikā, asura, kalyāṇamitra, etc. He sorts this body of evidence into groups shared by all three texts (T224, T624, T626), or by a pair of texts, or appearing in T624 alone. He finds that a considerable body of terminology is shared with T224 by T624 and T626, but another, smaller group of items is shared by T624 and T626 alone. He finds further that T626 shares more with T224 than T624 does, and on this basis, suggests that perhaps T624 was translated later than T626 (allowing time for greater development away from the translation style represented by T224). However, he also acknowledges that hypotheses appealing to the internal chronology of the Lokakṣema corpus to explain such differences flies in the face of the chronology suggested by external evidence.

In addition to translation terminology, Miyazaki points out that T624 and T626 differ from T224 in two formal features: (1) the use of interlinear glosses to explain transcriptions; (2) the use of an opening formula ("Thus have I heard..."). He also suggests that there is, relatively speaking, a greater tendency to unwieldy transcriptions in T224, and to translation terms for the same meanings in T624 and T626.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 (translator 譯)

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

Zürcher lists the Dunzhentuoluo suo wen rulai sanmei jing 伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 T624 among a list of “three archaic texts with doubtful attributions.” Senyou listed the text as “lost;” in the Kaiyuan lu and following catalogues it is mentioned as an existing text translated by *Lokakṣema. Zürcher argues that the style and terminology reveal that is certainly a Han text, “albeit with some hesitation as regards its attribution to *Lokakṣema.” He adds that T624 is an archaic translation of the Druma-kiṃnararāja-paripṛcchā. “Very elaborate text, largely consisting of numerical series, in which both the Buddha and King Druma (the ruler of the semi-human beings called kiṃnara) explain and glorify the Bodhisattva career and the Mahāyāna doctrine of universal Emptiness.” The text’s finale is the prophecy of King Druma’s future Buddhahood.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

According to Ōno, the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā T624 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue as the anonymous Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經 in two juan.

It is also included as an extant scripture in CSZJJ (juan 3) with the alternate titles Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 and Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經. Even so, CSZJJ gives still another entry for the same title in the section on Lokakṣema, citing the Bie lu 別錄: 伅真陀羅經二卷, with a note stating that the Jiu lu and Bie lu record the text, but it is missing from Dao’an’s catalogue, and was missing in Sengyou’s time 舊錄云屯真陀羅王經別錄所載安錄無今闕. Ōno maintains that this is a redundant entry caused by Sengyou’s misunderstanding that there were two scriptures when there was just one, presumably because he was misled by the variations of the titles.

Fajing inherits CSZJJ’s mistaken record and lists both the anonymous Dun zhentuoluo suowen rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經 and the alleged alternate translation, the Dun zhentuoluo suowen jing 屯真陀羅所問經 ascribed to Lokakṣema, also treating as an alternate translation of the same text the Dashu jinnaluo wang suowen jing 大樹緊那羅王所問經 (T625). The anonymous title has not been not listed since Yancong. In LDSBJ, we also see notice of a supposed Dun zhentuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, and in DZKZM, of a Dun zhentuoluoni suowen jing 伅眞陀羅尼所問經, but in both cases, 尼 is in error for 王.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

• Title: Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經
• T0784; 四十二章經
• T2034; 歷代三寶紀
• Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄

Sakaino lists all titles for which Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, cited the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 (324-325):

- a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰;

- a Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭;

- thirteen titles, including a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra 内藏經, ascribed to An Shigao (cf. T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema);

- Five titles, including a Dun zhen tuoluoni [sic!] jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, ascribed to *Lokakṣema;

- an Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛;

- the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 [成具光明定意經] T630, (still today) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜;

- a Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨; and

- a Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 古維摩經 ascribed to Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調.

Sakaino then discusses each title in detail.

T784, Sakaino holds, is already known to be an apocryphon.

The Shi di duan jie jing is not listed in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, so it would be odd if it were later rediscovered in the Zhu Shixing catalogue, as Fei claims. The name Zhu Falan does not appear in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, but LDSBJ ascribes a variety of titles to him, such as this Shi di duan jie jing, a Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, a Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, a Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經, and an Erbailiushi juan [sic] heyi 二百六十卷 合異. Sakaino claims that Fei, who did not have enough knowledge to analyse and evaluate scriptures, just gathered those titles and ascribed them to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 without any basis in evidence. The Erbailiushi juan heyi , for instance, should be an erroneous record of the Erbailiushi jie sanbu heyi 二百六十戒三部合異 ascribed to Tanwulan 曇無蘭. This scripture compared three different versions of the 260 prohibitions of the Prātimokṣa, so could not have been produced when no version of the Prātimokṣa rules were yet available. It is clear that Fei Changfang made this ascription due to confusion between the names Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (Sakaino sees a possible reason for this error in the fact that, as he surmises, both represent *Dharmarakṣa). The Fo bensheng jing and Fo benxing jing are probably the same text listed twice; some catalogue probably mis-transcribed 本行 as 本生, and Fei then took the resulting title to be a different text. The Fo benxing jing is likely to actually refer to the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 ascribed to Tanwulan, another mistake resulting from the same confusion of names. Sakaino also suspects that the entry on the Shi di duan jie jing is based upon the ascription of a Shi di yiqie zhi de jing 十地一切智德經 ascribed to another Dharmarakṣa, viz., 竺法護, and thus also be based upon a similar confusion of names. Likewise, Sakaino speculates that the Fo fa hai zang jing could be an error for the Bao zang jing寶藏經 [文殊師利現寶藏經 T461] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.

The ascription of a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra to An Shigao is odd, as this is a Mahāyāna text while all the works of An Shigao are “hīnayāna.” Sakaino suspects that this record actually refers to内藏百寶經 T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema. The other twelve titles ascribed to An Shigao are all listed as “hīnayāna” texts in Sengyou’s catalogue, and are hence less problematic.

Four of the five titles ascribed to *Lokakṣema, except for the so-called Dun zhen tuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, were already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. In CSZJJ, Sengyou first listed the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā 伅眞陀羅經 T624, citing the Jiu lu 舊錄. However, Dun zhentuoluo 伅眞陀羅 is a transliteration of Druma-kinnara[raja], and has nothing to do with *dhāraṇī 陀羅尼, as Fei’s record of this title would appear to suggest. According to Sakaino, it is not known at which point the title was mistaken for 伅眞陀羅尼 --- in the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue, in LDSBJ, or by a later scribal error.

Sakaino states that he explained earlier that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā ascribed to Zhu Shuofo is probably the result of a misunderstanding on Sengyou’s part [see separate note on 253-257].

T630 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue.

The Wen diyu shi jing ascribed to Kang Ju appears first in GSZ, but too little is known about Kang Ju to make discussion worthwhile.

The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa ascribed to Yan Fotiao does not appear in CSZJJ. It was not included among the three versions of the text (ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭) referred to by Zhi Mindu, when he compiled the his synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩經. [Sakaino apparently implies that hence the version ascribed to to Yan Fotiao is spurious --- AI.]

In sum, Sakaino maintains that most of the major entries for which Fei Changfang claims the support of the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue are problematic, and that it is clear that his reports about the content of this catalogue are not reliable. Sakaino infers that the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 was composed sometime in the 550s or 560s, between the end of the Liang 梁 and the beginning of the Sui.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 伅真陀羅經, notes that the text is not found in Dao'an's catalogues, and states that the text is "presently missing":

伅真陀羅經二卷(舊錄云屯[伅M]真陀羅王經別錄所載安錄無今闕)

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Dun zhentuoluo suowen Bao rulai jing 伅真陀羅所問寶如來經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云伅真陀羅所問寶如來三昧經或云伅真陀羅經; 18a1-2. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Dun zhentuoluo suowen rulai sanmei jing [純真 P]伅真陀羅所[問寶 YM]問如來三昧經 T624, attributed in the present canon (T) to Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖.

Entry author: Merijn ter Haar

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)