| Identifier | T0222 [T] |
| Title | 光讚經 [T] |
| Date | November 27, 286 [Boucher 1996] |
| Unspecified | Bo Yuanxin 帛元信; Fadu 法度 [Anon T285 preface] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Daoan PP preface] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [CSZJJ] |
| Amanuensis 筆受 | Nie Chengyuan, 聶承遠 [Daoan PP preface] |
| 出 "bring out", "issue" | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Daoan PP preface] |
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 |
[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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 314-316 |
LDSBJ lists both a Xin daoxing jing 新道行經 [“new Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā”] in 10 juan and a Xiao pin jing 小品經 [“smaller Prajñāpāramitā”, which should also be a version of the Aṣṭa] in 7 juan as works of Dharmarakṣa. Fei maintains that Dharmarakṣa translated two Xiao pin jing and that the Xin (“new”) daoxing jing is very different from the Jiu (“old”) daoxing [jing] 舊道行 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, while the Xiao ping jing is similar to the Jiu daoxing jing. Sakaino claims that none of these records are reliable, pointing out that Dao’an is the most reliable source regarding Dharmarakṣa, but according to him, Dharmarakṣa did not translate a Xiao pin jing. According to Sakaino, Sengyou, in CSZJJ, mistook the Guangzan banre jing 光讚般若 [光讚經 T222], which is a “Larger” Prajñāpāramitā 大品 [something like a forerunner of the eventual Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā], for a “Smaller” 小品, and also mistook an alternate translation of the same text, the Fangguang [banre jing] 放光[般若經] ascribed to Zhu Shixing 朱士行 (cf. T221 ascribed to *Mokṣala) for another “Smaller” Prajñāpāramitā (Sengyou commented:一名舊小品, T2145 [LV] 7b7;竺法護更出小品經七卷, 14a2). The first of these two so-called “Smaller” Prajñāpāramitā refers to the T222, but LDSBJ wrongly listed it as a different text. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145:55.7b12-8c9 |
|
In the list of texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Dao'an, 28 bear dates. One of these (the 五蓋疑結失行經) has a note saying that Dao'an did not think it looked like a Dharmarakṣa text. This note lists the remaining 27. [Zürcher (2007): 66 suggests that this may be evidence that "in these cases [Dao'an's] attribution was based upon early dated colophons", which may mean that these attributions can be regarded as some of the strongest in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, on external grounds.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 54 n. 26 |
|
Mei begins with the 76 texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in the present Taishō which also appear in Sengyou. She then eliminates eight for the following reasons: five are listed as lost by Sengyou's time (T182, T288, T496, T558, T1301); T1301, moreover, contains details that makes it appear as if it may have been composed in China; T103 and T453 have been regarded as dubious by modern scholars (Gao Mingdao and Yinshun); and Sengyou's description of the 佛為菩薩五夢經 that he ascribes to Dharmarakṣa does not match T310(4). This leaves 68 texts Mei thinks can reliably be matched against Sengyou. This entry lists those 68 texts. [Note: Mei erroneously gives the number T627 for what is properly T636---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Daoan PP preface] Daoan 道安. He Fang guang Guang zan lüejie xu 合放光光讚略解序 — T2145 (LV) 47c29-48b21 |
According to Daoan, the original manuscript from which T222 was translated was brought from Khotan in 286 by Qiduoluo 祇多羅. The text was "brought out" 出 by Dharmarakṣa on 25th of 11th that same year. Dharmarakṣa "took the foreign text in his hand", and Nie Chengyuan was amanuensis. The text then circulated only in Liang 涼 for 91 years, i.e. it was unknown in the capital/the centre, until Daoan himself made arrangements to have it brought. "...it was almost at the point of becoming extinct....damaged and incomplete..." 幾至泯滅...斯經既殘不具. Daoan initially obtained one chapter only, probably in the years 335-349 (Zacchetti 2005: 52-53, n. 18, citing personal correspondence with Palumbo). Later, disciples of Daoan who were on their way to India copied the complete text and had it sent back to him in Xiangyang, where it reached him in 376. 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). — 68, 70, 191, 340 n. 182, 344 n.237 |
The Guangzan jing 光讚經 T222, Dharmarakṣa’s version of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, translated in 286 at Chang’an, was lost in the Xiongnu conquest during the beginning of the fourth century. However, Zürcher argues that the text remained in circulation in the Dunhuang branch of Dharmarakṣa’s school in Liangzhou (Gansu); whence Dao’an eventually obtained an incomplete copy in 376. Furthermore, according to Dao’an (CSZJJ VII 48.1.19 n. 221 nr. 2 and IX 62.2.25 n. 221, ib.) “at least a part” could be found in Shanxi and Northern Henan at around 340. Jizang 吉臧, in his Dapin jing youyi 大品經遊意, identified the Guangzan jing with the largest version of the Prajñāpāramitā; an identification which, Zürcher argues, “is certainly wrong.” Zürcher claims that Jizang’s theory is most likely based on an incomprehensible passage contained in the Da zhidu lun 大智度論T1509, 67 (p. 529.2.23). Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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). — 66 |
|
Zürcher states that in the list of texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Dao'an, 29 bear dates [I actually count 28; further, one, the 五蓋疑結失行經, has a note saying that Dao'an did not think it looked like a Dharmarakṣa text, and so I also exclude it---MR]. This note lists the remaining 27. Zürcher suggests that this may be evidence that "in these cases [Dao'an's] attribution was based upon early dated colophons". [This may mean that these attributions can be regarded as some of the strongest in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, on external grounds.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Anon T285 preface] Anon. Jianbei jing shi zhu hu ming bing shuxu 漸備經十住胡名并書敘. — T2145 (LV) 62b22-62c9 |
CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 62b22-62c9. See Zacchetti (2005): 55-62, where Zacchetti gives a "tentative translation", with copious notes, of the part of the text relating to T222. The author of this text (often thought to be Daoan himself; Zacchetti says that it was probably at least someone in Daoan's circle in Xiangyang, writing at or soon after the time of the events described) says that T222 was translated 8 or 9 years before T221 (on difficulties posed by this interval, see Zacchetti's long n. 32, pp. 55-56). The text circulated only in Liangzhou for a long time, and did not reach other parts of China. Based upon the time of translation, and also on the names of other persons mentioned in the colophon as involved in the translation (Nie Chengyuan, Bo Yuanxin and Fadu) the author of the document assumes that the text was translated in Chang'an. The document also describes the complicated circumstances and process by which the text was sent from Liangzhou to Xiangyang; it appears that it took about two years to get there, arriving in 376. The document also reports the existence of a colophon to T222, which gave a date of translation, and said that Nie Chengyuan acted as amanuensis, and it also mentions Bo Yuanxin 帛元信 and Fadu 沙門法度 as participating in some unspecified capacity. Zacchetti notes that T222 is a “defective scripture”, because it lacks approximately the last two thirds of the larger Prajñāpāramitā. These circumstances, he points out, would make it surprising that it should have had a colophon, since normally a colophon would be attached at the end of the text. If the colophon attached to the end of our present text, it would indicate that T222 was never a translation of the larger PP in full. Other circumstances, however, see to indicate that the text became defective sometime during transmission after translation. 護公出光讚。計在放光前九年。不九年當八年。不知何以遂逸在涼州不行於世。尋出經時。乃在長安出之。而都不流行。乃不知其故。吾往在河北。唯見一卷經。後記云。十七章。年號日月亦與此記同。但不記處所。所以為異。然出經時人云聶承遠筆受。帛元信沙門法度此人。皆長安人也。以此推之。略當必在長安出。此經胡本。亦言于闐沙門祇多羅所齎來也。此同如慧常等涼州來疏。正似涼州出。未詳其故。或乃護公在長安時。經未流宣唯持至涼州。未能乃詳審。泰元元年歲在丙子五月二十四日此經達襄陽。釋慧常以酉年因此經寄互市人康兒展轉至長安。長安安法華遣人送至互市。互市人送達襄陽。付沙門釋道安。襄陽時齊僧有三百人。使釋僧顯寫送與楊州道人竺法汰. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Boucher 1996] Boucher, Daniel. "Buddhist Translation Procedures in Third-Century China: A Study of Dharmarakṣa and his Translation Idiom." PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996. — 260 |
In the appendix to his dissertation Boucher provides a list of ninety-five texts attributed to Dharmarakṣa by Sengyou in his Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145, along with a note on relevant scholarship. Among these texts is the Guangzan jing 光讚經 Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā T222, which Sengyou dated November 27, 286. Boucher refers to an article which compares the “treatment of compounds in the opening section of the text that includes mention of Dharmaraksa's usage”: Tilmann Vetter, “Compounds in the in the Prologue of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für indische Philosophie 37 (1993): 45-92. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Sasaki 1972] Sasaki Takanori 佐々木孝憲. “Jiku Hōgo no yakkyō ni tsuite: Shō hoke kyō kaidoku no tame no kisoteki kenkyū 竺法護の訳経について―正法華経解読のための基礎的考察.” In Hoke kyō no Chūgokuteki tenkai 法華経の中国的展開, edited by Sakamoto Yukio 坂本幸男, 471-506[R]. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1972. — 490 |
Because T222 did not reach the centre (Daoan’s circle) until ninety years after it was translated, Sasaki is suspicious that it may have undergone some kind of modification or revision in the interim (490). He states that its translation terminology and phraseology is unlike that of texts translated in the same period of Dharmarakṣa’s career (according to the dates given in CSZJJ), and closest to the Aśokadattavyākaraṇa 阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經 T337. Sasaki does not specify the terminology and phraseology he has in mind. Sasaki seems to based his judgement in part on the mix of transcription and translation terms in the text, saying that translation terms are not so anomalous for the period, but transcriptions are; the mix of transcription and translation seen in T222 is also seen elswhere, but is rare in texts of this period. Sasaki says that Ch. 3 begins with a similar mix of transcription and translation terms to that seen elsewhere, but the latter portion of the chapter does not use transcriptions at all, and he suggests that it might have been revised on the basis of *Mokṣala’s T221. That is to say, even transcription terms that do appear in other sūtras of this period are here missing. Sasaki adds that although T222 is close to T263 in date, it is far removed from it in style. 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). — 343 n. 221 |
|
Sengyou's CSZJJ preserves fifteen prefaces, postfaces and colophons to works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. This entry lists those works; one, the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra, is no longer extant. [All other things being equal, the external evidence supporting the ascription to Dharmarakṣa for these texts should therefore be stronger than for other texts. I was unable to find the colophon Zürcher points to for T285---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Suzuki 1995] Suzuki Hiromi 鈴木裕美. “Koyaku kyōten ni okeru yakugo ni tsuite: Jiku Hōgo yakushutsu kyōten wo chūshin toshite 古訳経典における訳語について―竺法護訳出経典を中心として.” IBK 43, no. 2 (1995): 198-200. |
|
Suzuki regards the texts listed in this entry as genuine Dharmarakṣa translations. She groups them into five types, on the basis of stylistic features: A: T222, T588 , T636 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Zacchetti 2005] Zacchetti, Stefano. In Praise of the Light: A Critical Synoptic Edition with an Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-3 of Dharmarakṣa’s Guang zan jing 光讚經, Being the Earliest Chinese Translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology – Soka University. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica VIII. Tokyo 2005. — 40-41 |
Zacchetti, following Bongard-Levin and Hori, suggests that at this early date, it is not meaningful to speak of a Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, and that we should rather speak more generically of a “Larger Prajñāpāramitā”. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Anon T285 preface] Anon. Jianbei jing shi zhu hu ming bing shuxu 漸備經十住胡名并書敘. |
The "Jianbei jing shi zhu hu ming bing shuxu" 漸備經十住胡名并書敘 reports that in 373, five texts were sent from Liangzhou to Dao'an in Xiangyang. Lamotte translates relevant portions of the document, and identifies three of these titles with the extant T222, T285 and T329. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Daoan PP preface] Daoan 道安. He Fang guang Guang zan lüejie xu 合放光光讚略解序
|
Dao'an's "He Fangguang guangzan lüe jie xu" 合放光光讚略解序 reports that T222 was sent from Liangzhou to Dao'an in Xiangyang in 373. Lamotte translates relevant lines from the document. 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: 小品經七卷 (title #20 in the numbering given to the Bie lu manuscript in the transcription of Tan 1991). An interlinear note (see below) identifies the text explicitly with Dharmarakṣa. In Sengyou's list of "missing" Dhr texts, we have this title and note: 更出小品[+經SYM]七卷, 8c13. Sengyou repeats this information when listing all versions of PP: 竺法護更出小品經七卷, 14a2. On this basis, we might tentatively identify this text with either T222, or with a (lost, supposed) Dharmarakṣa version of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā. In the Bie lu manuscript, this title is followed by an interlinear note: 晉武帝時竺法護到西域得胡本還太 Note that the date given here does not accord with other external evidence about the translation of T222. In CSZJJ, this same wording forms part of Sengyou's note covering the entire Dhr list (both parts, seen and missing): 合二件。凡一百五十四部。合三百九卷。晉武帝時。沙門竺法護。到西域得胡[梵SYM]本還。自太始中至懷帝永嘉二年[。]以[已SYM]前所譯出。祐捃摭群錄。遇護公所出更得四部。安錄先闕。今條入錄中。安公云。遭亂錄散小小錯涉。故知今之所獲審是護出也, T2145 (LV) 9b28-c4. In the Bie lu, however, it is not logical to suppose that the interlinear note in question covers any more titles than the title immediately preceding it, because the title before that (Tan#19) is 阿閦佛國經, i.e. *Lokakṣema's Akṣobhyavyūha T313, and that title is covered by its own interlinear note. 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 |
|