| Identifier | T0418 [T] |
| Title | 般舟三昧經 [T] |
| Date | 光和二年 (179 CE) [Jiu lu CSZJJ] |
| Unspecified | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Zürcher 1959/2007] |
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 |
[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. — 279, 298 |
Zürcher argues that *Lokakṣema’s Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418 is one of a group of twenty-nine texts which can be considered “genuine” Han translations. Zürcher reaches this conclusion by a “critical selection” process which requires reliable bibliographic attribution, alongside corroborating evidence from glosses, colophons, prefaces, or commentaries; as well as internal “terminological and stylistic analysis” to identify distinctive features particular to certain translator’s teams. He adds that T418 is the earliest version of the Bhadrapāla-sūtra, which deals “with the power of this samādhi that enables the devotee to visualise the Buddha Amitābha". According to Zürcher, Harrison argues that only the Korean recension of the text represents *Lokakṣema’s original translation; the others “contain a great number of interpolations and variants” that were most likely borrowed from Dharmarakṣa’s late third century version. For an in-depth study of the internal issues of this text Zürcher cites Paul Harrison, The Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra, an annotated English translation of the Tibetan version (PhD. Dissertation, A.N.U.), Canberra, 1979, Appendix A, esp. pp.200-235. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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, 332-333 n. 95 |
Zürcher argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing (Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra) T417/418 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokakṣema was more than “hypothetical” (the second being T224) on the basis of its mention in the CSZJJ II and an anonymous colophon (ib. VII 48.3.9 sqq.). Zürcher adds that the textual origins of this scripture are complicated, and scholars who have studied the text have reached very different opinions. Zürcher cites Hayashiya Tomojirō (Kyōroku-kenkyū, pp. 544-578) who “discusses the opinions of former specialists” such as Sakaino Kōyō and Mochizuki Shinkō; after a careful comparison of the two versions, Hayashiya concludes that the version in three juan (T418) is the original translation by *Lokakṣema, the one in one juan (T417) being “an abstract made from the earlier more extensive text.” He adds that besides these two texts, there is another “short and archaic version” (Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經T419) which "probably dates from Han times." 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. — 223-249 |
Harrison argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 (in three juan) T418 (BZSMJ) can be tentatively attributed to Lokakṣema, with some reservations. According to Harrison, the text is preserved both in the Korean edition of the canon ("K") and the “printed editions” of the Song, Yuan and Ming Dynasties ("SYM"). Harrison summarises the differences between K and SYM as follows [“chapter” refers to divisions based upon the Tibetan, rather than pin 品 divisions in the Chinese]: 1. The opening paragraph of the nidāna demonstrates a “redactional difference” between K and SYM. Harrison suggests that this may be the result of an insertion into SYM of a “well known śrāvaka-guṇa formula,” without reference to the Indic manuscript of the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvastitasamādhi-sūtra (PraS). However, because the nidāna of SYM corresponds with that of T416 and the Tibetan version, Harrison considers it likely that the nidāna does go back to the Indic, and is not a “formulaic application by a Chinese writer of the nidāna as it appears in K.” 2. The gāthās at the end of Chapters 3, 4 and 5 are “clearly independent translations of an original text”. Harrison bases this conclusion on comparison to T416, T419 (which is closer to K than SYM), and the Tibetan version. 3. There are roughly 235 variant readings between the two versions, which Harrison regards as “of minor importance”. They usually involve no more than a single character. Approximately half of these variants are to be found in the “first third of the text.” Chapters 1-6 of K show significantly more deviation in transmission from SYM than Chapters 7-26; and the opening section of the nidāna and the gāthās of these chapters are “clear proof of an independent textual tradition”. From Chapter 7 onwards, K and SYM are “virtually identical”. We can therefore conclude that “all the prose of the BZSMJ (excluding 1A) and all the gāthās from Chap. 7 onwards in both K and SYM go back to the same original text. Because the variant readings contained therein are almost totally artefacts of transmission, we can also conclude that the only significant redactional differences between K and SYM lie, in fact, in the gāthās of Chapters 4-6 and in the nidāna of Chapter 1 (i.e. in Chapter 1-6 of K). In view of this, “we are justified in designating K 1-6 as a separate redaction of the BZSMJ.” Thus Harrison divides the texts into Reaction A (K Chapters 1-6), and Redaction B (all of SYM and Chapters 7-26 of K). He offers the following hypotheses to explain the existence of these two separate redactions: 1. Lokakṣema translates a complete version of the PraS with his customary “shortened nidāna” and “prose rendition of the gāthā”. This translation is Redaction A. 2. (a) “A later translator”, with a different Indic manuscript, redoes the nidāna and the gāthās, but “leaves the prose of Redaction A virtually unchanged”, thus producing Redaction B. Or: 3. (b) “A later translator”, with a different Indic manuscript, creates an original translation of the PraS (which Harrison terms “X”). Subsequently the gāthās and nidāna of this translation are conflated with the prose of Redaction A”, thus producing Redaction B. 4. Redaction B becomes the “standard edition of the large BZSMJ in China and is printed in the standard editions of the Chinese Canon (=SYM)”. 5. At some point, “either at the redaction of the Korean edition of the Canon or – more probably – on the occasion of some earlier edition, a version of the BZSMJ is produced which combines Chapters 1-6 of A with Chapters 7-26 of B”, yielding the present K. Harrison notes that T419 (which consists of six chapters) and Redaction A end at the same point. This would appear to suggest that Lokakṣema’s original translation consisted only of Chapters 1-6. However, Harrison argues that the “homogeneity of prose” in both versions of the BZSMJ suggests that the prose portions of Chapters 1-6 and 7-26 are the work of the same person or persons. In what follows, Harrison attempts to establish this homogeneity, and to determine the authorship of the text by comparison to T224 ("DXJ" = Daoxing jing), as DXJ is “the only text which can be regarded with certainty as a genuine product of his [Lokakṣema’s] translation work.” Harrison concludes that features common to BZSMJ and DXJ prove that both are the work of the same person or school. Thus, in the two extant versions of the BZSMJ in three juan, Chapters 1-6 of K go back to Lokakṣema’s original translation, as does, “with some hesitation”, the prose of Chapters 7-26 in both K and SYM. However, the gāthās of SYM 1-26 and K 7-26 “are the work of another translator.” To illustrate his point, Harrison presents a list of terms which are common to both the BZSMJ and DXJ. He finds that the majority of translation terms in the two texts exhibit a close affinity, especially those which are considered “particularly characteristic of Lokakṣema … [e.g. terms for] tathatā, Buddha, bhūta-koṭi etc.” Harrison considers small discrepancies in the treatment of these terms to be “minor alterations” made “during the course of a later revision.” While the prose portions of both Redactions agree with Lokakṣema’s style, the verse gāthās of Redaction B are not in the style of Lokakṣema, “who is known to render gāthās in prose.” Therefore, Harrison considers these verses to be the work of another hand. He thinks it most likely that at some point in the third century, someone with access to an Indic manuscript revised Lokakṣema’s translation and replaced its gāthās with verse, while also making certain other adjustments. While he does not himself investigate the author of these adjustments, Harrison suggests Zhi Qian and Dharmarakṣa as possible candidates. Harrison then examines external evidence. Sengyou’s catalogue indicates that Dao’an attributed a text entitled Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 to Lokakṣema, as did the Jiu lu 舊錄, and both indicated that Lokakṣema either translated or published the translation on the “eighth day of the tenth month, 179 C.E.” (which, as Harrison points out, is the same date on which he released DXJ!). In addition, a colophon to the BZSMJ (by an unknown author) tells us that Lokakṣema translated the text along with Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔, an Indian who was also involved in the translation of the Aṣṭa (which, according to Harrison, raises the possibility that the PraS was brought from India at the same time). Zhu Foshuo is said to have “recited the text in the original language, while Lokakṣema translated it orally into Chinese for his Chinese assistants to take down in writing.” Fei Changfang attributed an additional translation of the PraS to Zhu Foshuo, but Harrison considers this to be improbable. Additional evidence for the text’s attribution to Lokakṣema can be found in another colophon (written by Zhi Mindu 支愍度). Thus, Harrison concludes, “The attribution of a work entitled BZSMJ to Lokakṣema is well established in the earliest sources.” Harrison adds that “since Sengyou does not mention any other extant works with this title, we can assume that there were only two works of that name;” the longer version popularly attributed to Dharmarakṣa, and the shorter to Lokakṣema (T417). Fajing attributed a two juan version to Dharmarakṣa, and lists a separate and partial translation in one juan by Lokakṣema. However, after its appearance in the Fajing lu, Lokakṣema’s version in one juan disappears. It is not mentioned by LDSBJ, and the Renshou lu (Yancong), Jingtai and DZKZM list it among lost texts. The text did not appear in the Song, Yuan or Ming editions of the Canon, nor the Qisha 磧砂 edition. Yet it surfaced in the Korean edition, and has since found its way into the Taishō as T417. How it did so, Harrison writes, remains a mystery. Returning to the larger BZSMJ, Harrison makes two main points: the extant two or three juan version (most likely Redaction B) “was ascribed to Dharmarakṣa until the eighth century”; “Lokakṣema came to be credited for his own two juan version, along with the temporarily lost one juan text.” The first extant catalogue after Sengyou (CSZJJ) to attribute a two juan version to Lokakṣema was Fei Changfang’s “notoriously unreliable” LDSBJ, in which he takes the alternative date and title from Sengyou's CSZJJ. Harrison is unsure where Fei got the variant juan count; it possibly derives from another source. In KYL, Zhisheng “overturned the attribution of the complete version of the PraS” to Dharmarakṣa. Zhisheng lists Dharmarakṣa’s version as lost, and attributes the three juan version to Lokakṣema. According to Harrison, this reattribution was most likely based on internal evidence, the “testimony of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue,” and the “Wu lu 吳錄 recorded by Fei Changfang”. The text is listed as fifty pages long, “which tallies exactly with the number of columns in the Taishō edition.” Zhisheng’s assertion has been regarded as final “down to the present day”, and Harrison believes this to have been “borne out by an examination of [the text’s] style”. However, he also notes that for the existence of Dharmarakṣa’s translation, we only have Sengyou’s word (based on Dao’an’s), which all subsequent catalogues followed. Although Dao’an is considered to be reliable, Harrison wonders if such a translation existed in the first place. He writes that it is possible that Dao’an was referring to Dharmarakṣa’s revision of a previous translation, rather than an original. As discussed above, based on his examination of stylistic cues, Harrison does not consider Dharmarakṣa to have been involved, because “the relevant portions of B are closer to Lokakṣema’s A than Dharmarakṣa’s translation style.” In view of these facts, Harrison argues that Redaction B was created by a revision which (according to the colophon to the BZSMJ) took place in 208, “in the Han capital of Xu(chang).” He reasons that if the original translation had taken place in 179, a revision so long afterwards "would not have been the stylistic touching up which usually occurred after a translation”. Therefore the revision in 208 appears to have been a “major overhaul”, which Harrison suggests was undertaken by students of Lokakṣema’s school with a slightly different manuscript. Those students would have been more familiar with Chinese and thus able to “convert gāthās into unrhymed Chinese verse” and utilise a more “sinicised vocabulary”. Harrison concludes that Dharmarakṣa’s part, if he ever was involved, “remains unknown”, but “as far as the origins of Redaction B of the BZSMJ is concerned, I doubt we ever need to look further than the revision of 208 C.E.” Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 81-83 |
This note applies to the verse portions of the text. Nattier discusses T418 along with T313, both ascribed to Lokakṣema, as problematic, and probably revised. In T418, verses are atypical of Lokakṣema (it is atypical for Lokakṣema to use verse at all, and he typically translates verse into prose), as is the terminology they contain. The verses also contain translation rather than transcription terms. This means that the verses adopt a different translation strategy from that typical for Lokakṣema, a new TYPE of terminology. Sakurabe observed in 1975 that the Taisho apparatus for this text attests to significant variants (usually lining up K vs SYM) , and this is evidence for revision. Harrison subsequently showed that K is itself a hybrid. The second half is almost identical to SYM, which represents a revision. In the first half, however, K differs significantly from SYM, and appears to preserve a state of the text prior to revision. Thus, in Ch. 3 and half of Ch. 4, the gathas are rendered in prose in K, but in verse in SYM. Harrison has suggested that the revision represented by SYM (and the second half of K) could have been made by Dharmaraksa, or Zhi Qian. Nattier adds that it is possible the text was revised more than once, because non-Lokakṣema phraseology is concentrated in the verses in seven-character lines; the terminology of five- and six-character lines does not differ so greatly from Lokakṣema. Nattier suggests that T632 resembles T418 in several respects (see notes on T632 also), and they should be studied in conjunction. Nattier also suggests the two may form a "discourse community" with T313. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2006] Nattier, Jan. “The Names of Amitābha/Amitāyus in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations (2).” ARIRIAB 10 (2007): 359-394. — 364-365 |
Nattier points out that the verses of T418 include some expressions typical of Zhi Qian, and also share some rare terms with T632. Both works also show signs of being revised. She suggests that the verses of these two texts may have been added by Zhi Qian. Nattier also notes that these verse portions of both T632 and T418 include sections of six-character verse, "a virtual fingerprint of Zhi Qian's activity". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 544-578 |
Hayashiya discusses the texts/titles he refers to as the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 (*Pratyutpannasamādhi-sutra) group. Among those, he chiefly discusses the ascriptions of and the relation between the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T417 (*Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitisamādhi-sūtra) ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖 and the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418, also ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Though both texts are ascribed to Lokakṣema, they differ considerably in length: T417 is slightly shorter than 15 registers long, with 8 chapters 品, while T418 is 50 registers long with 16 chapters. Hayashiya examines the relation between T417 and T418, and argues that T417 is just a shortened version of T418, and thus should be excised. This is because there are close overlaps between the two (he shows sample paragraphs on 560-563), which would not have been possible if the shorter T417 had been translated separately, referring to T418 merely as an aid. In addition, there is a part in T417 in which an unclear point in T418 was apparently clarified (564). Hayashiya agrees with the ascription of T418 to *Lokakṣema, pointing out that the vocabulary and tone of T418 show a perfect match with Lokakṣema’s other works, such as the Daoxing jing 道行經 (555-558). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that T417 should be excised, while the ascription of T418 to Lokakṣema is correct. [According to Hayashiya, T418 was initially ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 法護 by Dao’an, probably based on an incorrect description in the Banzhou sanmei jing ji 般舟三昧經記 (569-570). This ascription was accepted by a number of catalogues after Dao’an. The correct ascription to Lokakṣema was first given by LDSBJ, as a byproduct of Fei’s misunderstanding: He apparently misunderstood the length of the shorter T417, and listed it as a new, longer Banzhou sanmei jing translated by Lokakṣema, separately from the one ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. After that, KYL adopted that ascription to Lokakṣema for the extant, longer Banzhou sanmei jing (according to Hayashiya, the only authentic version that ever existed), which had long been incorrectly ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (572-573).] 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. — 890-891 |
Sakaino notes the following two notes in KYL, on different versions of the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi: 一名十方現在佛悉在前立定經舊錄云大般舟三昧經或二卷光和二年譯初出與大集賢護經等同本見聶道真錄及吳錄, T2154 (LV) 478c9-10 (in a list of texts ascribed to *Lokakṣema). 光和二年十月八日出見經後記高僧傳等二經同時啟夾故出日同也舊錄云大般舟三昧經或一卷第二出與大集賢護經等同本, T2154 (LV) 482b16-17 (ascribing this version of the text to Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔). Sakaino argues that these notes demonstrate that even Zhisheng is sometimes unreliable, since they indicate, implausibly, that two versions of the text (in 2 juan, and in 3 juan) were completed in the same year (光和 2 = 179 CE). All we can conclude on the basis of these notes is that a single version of the text in either 1 or 2 juan was translated by Zhu Foshuo/Shuofo 朔佛 and *Lokakṣema together in 179. The ascription of the 3 juan version [Sakaino also points out elsewhere that this version is also recorded as 2 juan in some catalogues ---AI] to *Lokakṣema in KYL is therefore incorrect. 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. — 887-888, 306 |
Sakaino points out that an anonymous preface to the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi 般舟三昧經, preserved in CSZJJ, appears to state anachronistically that Dharmarakṣa was the oral translator/interpreter 傳言 for *Lokakṣema’s translation of the text: 般舟三昧經。光和二年[179 CE]十月八日。天竺菩薩竺朔佛。於洛陽出。菩薩法護。時傳言者。月支菩薩支讖授與。河南洛陽孟福字元士。隨侍菩薩。張蓮字少安筆受... T2145 (LV) 48c10-16. Sakaino suggests that despite the anachronism, this report may preserve in a garbled form a faint shadow of a historical memory that Dharmarakṣa at some point revised the text. 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. — 883-890 |
A Banzhou sanmei jing 本般舟三味經 in one juan is ascribed to *Lokakṣema in CSZJJ, and should correspond to the extant T417. CSZJJ does not record a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛. It was LDSBJ that first recorded separately a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema and another ascribed to Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino points out that Fei took the former entry from CSZJJ, and the latter from GSZ. Sakaino states, however, that CSZJJ and GSZ might well have recorded the same text, in the translation of which both Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema were involved, the former handling the text 執本, and the latter as oral translator 傳語. Sakaino also mentions the possibility that *Lokakṣema translated the one juan, incomplete version T417 first, and the three-juan, complete version T418, the base text of which was brought to China by Zhu Shuofo, only later, as in the case of the “excerpted” Prajñāpāramitā 般若鈔經 [cf. 摩訶般若鈔經 T226 ascribed to 曇摩蜱譯 and 竺佛念] and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行般若經 (T224 ascribed to *Lokakṣema). Sakaino maintains that both T417 and T418 should be *Lokakṣema’s works, but revised by Dharmarakṣa. He discusses the following characteristics of the vocabulary of T417 and T418 as part of his support for this claim: The differences between the vocabulary of the one-juan version (T417) and that of the three-juan version (T418) are not substantial enough to regard the two texts as translated by different translators. Examples are: nirvāṇa: 涅槃 T417, 泥洹 418; yakṣa: 夜叉 T417, 閲叉 418; and kiṃnara: 甄陀羅 T417, 眞陀羅 418. 涅槃 for nirvāṇa in T417 appears odd, as *Lokakṣema always used 泥洹, but it is [according to Sakaino – MR] explicable if Dharmarakṣa later revised the text. For kiṃnara, *Lokakṣema uses mostly 甄陀羅 or 甄陀, very rarely 眞陀羅. Dharmarakṣa uniformly used 眞陀羅. Many other words are, according to Sakaino, used by both *Lokakṣema and Dharmarakṣa, and so are not useful in determining ascriptions, e.g., 阿耨多羅三耶三菩阿惟三佛, 薩阿竭阿羅訶三耶三佛, 摩訶衍三拔致薩芸若, and 摩訶僧那僧涅. Sakaino maintains that 恒邊沙 (for “the sands of the river Ganges”), seen in T418, appears only in *Lokakṣema’s work [sic—it also appears in the “Larger” Prajñāpāramitā 放光般若經 T221 ascribed to Mokaṣala 無羅叉, and some other texts in the PP line; scattered in small concentrations in some other works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, e.g. T263, T266, T323, T342, T378, T401, T433, T598, T810, T811; and outside Dharmarakṣa and PP, in several texts like T269, T309, T356, T434, T621, T632, T760, T816 and T1507 --- AI/MR]. Sakaino points out that a note on T417 entitled Banzhou sanmei jing ji 般舟三昧經記 contains confusions, including a claim that Dharmarakṣa was the oral translator for Lokakṣema, which is chronologically impossible. In addition, CSZJJ comments on the Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa that Dao'an's catalogue calls it a "reissue" 安公錄云更出般舟三昧經, T2145 (LV) 8a1. Sakaino conjectures that Dharmarakṣa might well have revised T417 perhaps because he obtained a different original, which would explain those [apparently confused] records. Sakaino maintains that the extant T418 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. The ascription of a Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 in three juan to Dharmarakṣa was first given by Jingtai. Jingtai states that the text sometimes also circulated in two juan, forty-seven sheets. KYL classifies a two juan Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa as lost, while ascribing the three juan Banzhou sanmei jing to *Lokakṣema. Sakaino points out that as no catalogues before KYL record the three juan version ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Probably Zhisheng mistook the three-juan version he saw for *Lokakṣema’s work, while simultaneously classifying Dharmarakṣa’s version as lost, overlooking the record of the three-juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Jingtai. In addition, KYL gives the same year of translation (Guanghe 光和 2, 179 CE) for the three juan 般舟三昧經 to *Lokakṣema and for the two juan version of the text ascribed to Zhu Shuofo, which, Sakaino states, shows the carelessness of Zhisheng (これ明に智昇の杜撰を暴露するものである). According to Sakaino, the fact that the translation year is the same indicates that Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema worked together in translating the one-juan/two-juan version of the text. Sakaino thinks that the variation in length is due to the existence of incomplete and complete versions. By contrast, the three juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa should be the extant T418, since it has never been recorded as lost (except in KYL). Sakaino infers that T418 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the two juan version ascribed to Zhu Shuofo (with *Lokakṣema as the oral translator), which explains why Dharmarakṣa’s version is said variously to be in two or three juan. Sakaino adds that the one juan version of the text that he regards as genuinely due to *Lokakṣema, T417, should also have been revised by Dharmarakṣa. 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. — 107-108 |
According to Sakaino, the Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to *Lokakṣema is actually the same text as the one ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, and LDSBJ and other scriptural catalogues are incorrect in recording as if *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo separately produced two different translations. It is true, however, that there existed two versions of the Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra, one incomplete (1 juan, cf. T417) and one complete (2 juan, cf. T418, which however is today in 3 juan?), but Sakaino explains that probably *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo translated those two versions together, not separately. The extant three-juan version (T418) is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the two-juan version by *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino states that he will discuss these texts further in a later chapter [in the same book], without specifying where. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 6b12 |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 般舟[般]三昧經, including a date for its translation (179 CE): 般舟般[-SYM]三昧經一[二SYM]卷(舊錄云大般舟三昧經光和二年十月[＋初SYM]八日出) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 6 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao argue that the date of the translation of the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418 requires further discussion, since it contains a cluster of vocabulary that only appears in the translations of the Western Jin dynasty. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 191–199. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Gao 2012a] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Dong Han yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012. — 191-199 |
The question of whether the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 (Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra) T418 was translated by Lokakṣema remains a subject of debate. Fang and Gao question the attribution of T418 to Lokakṣema. They state that T418 differs from translations reliably ascribed to Lokakṣema and the E. Han. It is more like a translation of the W. Jin, as it contains a set of vocabulary that only appear in translations from that era. Fang and Gao examine eight phrases that are found in both T417 and T418. Among these phrases, Five (group a) never appear in the translations of Lokakṣema and the E. Han, and three (group b) are absent from translations of the E. Han. The eight phrases are: a) 一切魔, 三昧力, 四面阿須倫王, 白衣菩薩, 學士 Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Lu 1989] Lu, Cheng. “Dharmarakṣa.” In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Volume 4, edited by W. G. Weeraratne, 552–54. Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, 1989. — 553 |
Lu writes that ten texts ascribed to other translators in T have been "found" to be "translated by Dharmarakṣa". Lu gives no references or arguments in support of this assertion. The texts in question are: *Sigālovāda-sūtra 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|