| Identifier | T0125 [T] |
| Title | 增壹阿含經 [T] |
| Date | 384 [Er Qin lu; Fei 597; Baochang lu] |
| Unspecified | *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda?; Dao'an 道安; Fahe 法和 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Revised | *Saṃghadeva, *Gautama Saṃghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Nattier 2010] |
| Amanuensis 筆受 | Zhisong 智嵩 /Huisong 慧嵩; Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Er Qin lu; Fei 597; Baochang lu] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Sakaino 1935] |
| 寫為梵文 copy/write down the Indic text | Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Er Qin lu; Fei 597; Baochang lu] |
| Reciter 誦出 | *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? [Unebe 1970] |
| Polished | Zhao Zheng 趙整 [Palumbo 2013] |
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 |
[Nattier 2010] Nattier, Jan. "Re-evaluating Zhu Fonian's Shizhu duanjie jing (T309): Translation or Forgery?" Annual Report of The International Research Insitute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 13 (2010): 256. — 233 n. 8 |
Nattier agrees with Legittimo (2006) that the EĀ 增壹阿含經 T125 is actually the version translated by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, or a slightly revised version thereof. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Legittimo 2010] Legittimo, Elsa. "Reopening the Maitreya-files – Two Almost Identical Early Maitreya Sutra Translations in the Chinese Canon: Wrong Attributions and Text-historical Entanglements." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, no. 1/2 (2010): 251–294. — 255-257 |
Summarising earlier work in 2006, Legittimo argues that the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T125 is in fact the translation by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. She states that her hypothesis is based mainly on translation terminology, and notes (256 n. 24) that Nattier independently arrived at a similar judgement, also on the basis of terminology. Legittimo argues that her study of the translation terminology of the 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, which is virtually identical to EĀ 48.3 (T125:787c2 ff.), also adds further evidence in support of this ascription of T125 to Zhu Fonian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Demiéville 1954] Demiéville, Paul. “La Yogācārabhūmi de Saṅgharakṣa.” BÉFEO 44, no. 2 (1954): 339-436. — 374 n. 1 |
Demiéville shows that the attribution to “Dharmanandin” [i.e. to the group that included Zhu Fonian] was championed as far back as Nanjio’s catalogue; Nanjio (1883): 133-134. Demiéville summarises subsequent opinions in support of the same attribution from such scholars as Lévi and Chavannes (in 1916), Sakaino (in 1927) and Ono Genmyō (in 1936). By contrast, Demiéville himself sides with the canonical ascription to Saṃghadeva, and shows that this ascription was also supported by such scholars as Matsumoto (in 1914), Hayashi (in 1928), and Hayashiya. The reasons Demiéville gives for his support of the canonical ascription are that he is impressed by the "detail" given by LDSBJ, which was derived from Baochang and from Daozu 竺道租 (cited by Fei via Baochang). However, Demiéville does give the caveat that he is not basing his opinion upon an examination of the terminology and style of the text. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Anālayo 2006] Anālayo, Bhikkhu. “The Ekottarika-āgama Parallel to the Saccavibhaṅga-sutta and the Four (Noble) Truths”, Buddhist Studies Review 23, no. 2 (2006): 145-153. |
According to Anālayo the Chinese parallel to the Saccavibhaṅga-sutta in the Ekottarika-āgama was “probably translated by Zhu Fo-nian (竺佛念)” and “based on a text recited from memory by Dharmanandī.” He adds that it is not entirely clear if “the translation now extant in Chinese has only been revised by Gautama Saṅghadeva, or whether it is an actual retranslation undertaken by him, which then replaced the earlier translation by Dharmanandī and Zhu Fo-nian.” Anālayo cites evidence which attributes the Ekottarika-āgama translation to Dharmanandī and Zhu Fo-nian: “T 2145 at T LV 71b29; T 2146 at T LV 127c29; T 2153 at T LV 422b6; and T 2154 at T LV 511b15.” He also acknowledges arguments that Gautama Saṅghadeva retranslated the Ekottarika-āgama: “T 2034 at T XLIX 70c; cf. also Bagchi (1927: 159, 337); Enomoto (1986: 19); Lamotte (1967: 105); Lü (1963: 242); Mayeda (1985: 102); Waldschmidt (1980: 169 n. 168); and Yin-shun (1983: 91).” However, Anālayo writes that despite the latter claims it is not clear to him on what manuscript Saṅghadeva would have based such a retranslation, “since whereas in the case of the Madhyama-āgama his translation was based on a written original read out to him by Sangharakṣa … Zhu Fo-nian translated the Ekottarika-āgama based on an original Dharmanandī had memorized … and there is no indication that Gautama Saṅghadeva had also memorized this collection.” Furthermore, Anālayo considers a retranslation “unlikely” because the Madhyama-āgama and the Ekottarika-āgama collections “differ considerably from each other in their translation terminology.” For examples of these differences Anālayo cites the way that the texts express proper names such as Jeta’s Grove and Sāriputta , and “the way they translate a standard expression like ‘right intention’ (sammā saṅkappa).” He writes that these differences “are not isolated cases,” but “are common between these two collections.” Such differences appear to be more than the usual variation in terminology of a particular translator “during successive stages of his translation activities” thus Anālayo concludes that “it would be more natural to attribute the translation of these two collections to different translators.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich and Anālayo 2017] Radich, Michael and Anālayo Bhikkhu. “Were the Ekottarika-āgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 and the Madhyama-āgama 中阿含經 T 26 Translated by the Same Person? An Assessment on the Basis of Translation Style.” In Research on the Madhyama-āgama, edited by Dhammadinnā, 209-237. Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series 5. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 2017. |
On the basis of a large set of diverse markers of translation style, Radich and Anālayo argue that the Ekottarikāgama T125 was not translated by the same person or group as the Madhyamāgama T26. They adduce evidence covering a wide range of phraseology, occurring very many times in each text. Overall, the Ekottarikāgama and the Madhyamāgama habitually and systematically differ from one another in the translation of many common names, terms, phrases and ideas. Given that the Madhyamāgama is our only reliable benchmark for the style of Saṅghadeva, this leads to the conclusion that the received ascription of the Ekottarikāgama to Saṅghadeva is incorrect. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lo 2005] Lo, Yuet Keung. “Recovering a Buddhist Voice on Daughters-in-Law: The Yuyenü jing.” History of Religions 44, no. 4 (2005): 318-350. |
|
Lo studies various alternate versions of this sūtra (T141, T142a, T142b, T143, EĀ 51.9), which, under various titles, gives a teaching on proper behaviour for daughters-in-law. Lo himself does not doubt or challenge the ascription of any of the four extant versions of the text (or five, allowing for the fact that T142 appears in two alternate versions in T, T142a and T142b). However, he does (somewhat confusingly) suggest that it may have been adapted to the demands of Confucian values, which would seem to suggest at least some degree of composition or modification in China. Lo also notes several features of these texts that might lead us, independent of his analysis, to wonder if it is in fact a translation, or whether the received attributions are correct: 1) It exists in quite a number of versions, but those versions are all supposed to have been produced in a fairly short period; 2) Some versions are anonymous (T142a, T142b) or attributed to obscure translators (Tanwulan 曇無蘭, T143) (T141 is ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅); 3) Dao'an lists only two possibly related titles, 玉耶女經 and 玉瑘經 [but he in fact treats both as alternate titles for a single text, a fact which Lo overlooks --- MR], and regards both as anonymous; 4) Sengyou's CSZJJ does not add any further information (it lists no additional versions, nor provides attributions); 5) there is "nothing particularly Buddhist" about the text (342); 6) the text also contains odd items of realia and diction, such as "silk and hemp" 絲...麻 , a transmigrating "spirit" 魂神, and "nine degrees of kin" 九族. [Lo himself does not pursue the question of the treatment of these titles in the catalogues beyond CSZJJ. Fajing lists two texts, the 玉耶經, for which he gives the alternate titles 長者詣佛說子婦不恭敬經 and 七婦經, and the 阿漱達經, and regards both as anonymous, T2146 (LV) 133b6-7. Yancong's information is identical, T2147 (LV) 160a15-16; as is Jingtai's, T2148 (LV) 194c3-4. Thus, LDSBJ is the first to ascribe the text Dao'an and Sengyou thought anonymous to Tanwulan, 玉耶經/玉耶女經, T2034 (XLIX) 69b11; but his ruzanglu inconsistently lists one of these titles, 玉耶經, as anonymous, and provides the alternate titles 長者詣佛說子婦不恭敬經 and 七婦經, 118c9. DTNDL repeats the ascription to Tanwulan, and ascribes a 玉耶經/長者詣佛說子婦無敬經/七婦經 AND a 阿遬達經 to Buddhabhadra and Faxian, T2149 (LV) 298b11-12. The situation is therefore something of a hopeless mess, but there is no reason to believe more than one version of the text was known down to Sengyou, nor that more than two versions were known even to Fei Zhangfang --- MR.] Lo tabulates differences between different versions of the text (327) and gives a translation of T142b at the end of his article (347-350). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Radich 2017a] Radich, Michael. “On the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 as a Work of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念.” Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 30 (2017): 1-31. |
On the basis of a large set of diverse stylistic markers, Radich argues that the Ekottarikāgama T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian, and not by Saṃghadeva, as the received ascription would have it. He also considers implications of his findings for the broader corpus of texts ascribed to Zhu Fonian. Radich presents a total of 137 markers which never appear in the Madhyamāgama T26, the benchmark text for Saṃghadeva, but occur a total of over 6,200 times in the Ekottarikāgama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus (DĀ T1, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464). In combination with the external evidence, Radich claims, this internal evidence provides extremely strong support for Zhu Fonian’s translatorship (or perhaps partial authorship) of the text. Radich's study is intended to work in concert with Radich and Anālayo (2017), which presents further evidence in support of the same reascription. 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. — 224-228, 230 |
The *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125: Sakaino argues that the ascription of the *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 and the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 to *Saṅghadeva 僧伽提婆 is incorrect. The situation of the translation of these texts that Sakaino extracts from the records can be summarized as follows: The translation of the *Madhyamāgama and the *Ekottarikāgama was initially done by *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 worked as the “interpreter/oral translator” 傳語, and Dao’an 道安 and Fahe 法和 also helped the project. The translations contained numerous mistakes, because of the war that raged at that time. Later, Fahe and Saṅghadeva went to Luoyang 洛陽 and the *Ekottarikāgama was there revised by Saṅghadeva. T26 was retranslated from a different original text when Saṅghadeva went to south. This version is the *Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26 extant today. The chief translator 譯主 was *Saṅgharakṣa 僧伽羅叉, and *Saṅghadeva worked as the interpreter/oral translator 傳語. Little is known about this Saṅgharakṣa. KYL is incorrect in recording that Saṅghadeva retranslated the*Ekottarikāgama as well as the Madhyamāgama. The *Ekottarikāgama was probably revised without discarding the initial translation of *Dharmanandi(n). Thus, the extant T125 should be ascribed to *Dharmanandi(n). *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提 probably also recited the text of the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含T125, judging from the fact that the first part 上部, comprising 26 juan, does not include any omissions or slips of memory 遺忘, and that, according to Dao’an, the verses are lost in the second part 下部 15 juan (230). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Hōbōgirin Répertoire 1978] Paul Demiéville, Hubert Durt and Anna Seidel. Répertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais: Édition de Taishō (Taishō shinshū daizōkyō). Fascicule annexe du Hōbōgirin: dictionnaire encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et japonaises. Tokyo: Maison franco-japonaise, 1978. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Er Qin lu] Sengrui 僧叡. Er Qin lu 二秦錄. |
Fei Zhangfang includes the *Ekottarikāgama in a group of five texts that he ascribes to *Dharmanandin. In an interlinear note citing the Er Qin lu and the Baochang lu, he says that the amanuenses for the translation were Huisong 慧嵩, Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, "et al." 等; and he gives a date of 384 建元二十年. In his note pertaining to the entire group of texts, he also says that when *Dharmanandin recited "the four Āgamas" (sic, the list features only two), Zhu Fonian took down the Indic text 寫為梵文. 增一阿含經五十卷(建元二十年四月一日。為秦武威太守趙文業出。是第一譯。沙門慧嵩竺佛念等筆受。見僧叡二秦錄僧祐及寶唱[+錄SYMP]並載). ....晉孝武帝世。兜佉勒國三藏法師曇摩難提。秦言法喜。以建元初至長安。誦四阿含梵本口授。竺佛念寫為梵文... Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Mizuno 1989] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. "Kan'yaku Chū agon kyō to Zōichi agon kyō 漢訳『中阿含経』と『増一阿含経』." Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 18 (1989): 1-42[L]. Chinese translation: "Hanyi Zhong ahan jing yu Zengyi ahan jing 漢譯《中阿含經》與《増一阿含經》," in Shuiye Hongyuan [=Mizuno Kōgen ], Fojiao wenxian yanjiu: Shuiye Hongyuan zhuzuo xuanji (1) 佛教文獻研究‧水 野 弘 元 著 作 選 集( 一), translated by Xu Yangzhu 許洋主, 509-579. Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2003. |
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva, He then attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon, and discover evidence supporting the ascription of those (now fragmentary) alternate translations to "Dharmanandi"/Zhu Fonian. On this basis, Mizuno affirms the traditional ascription of EĀ T125 to Saṅghadeva. Records attesting to a possible second EĀ translation (hereafter "EĀ-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Saṅghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Saṅghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Saṅghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text. Mizuno's argument about the ascription of the extant EĀ T125 is based upon a contrast with another set of sūtras, which Mizuno regards as vestiges of the otherwise lost second translation. Mizuno proposes that the texts in this second group share a uniform style, which he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]. He also holds, further, that the same style characterises a further group of scattered sūtras which he thinks survived from a similarly lost MĀ. These texts are as follows (see separate entries for further details): "EĀ-alt": T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684; "MĀ-alt": T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94. On the basis of the contrast with these texts, Mizuno argues that like the extant T26, the extant EĀ T125 should be considered as Saṅghadeva’s translation, as the tradition (eventually) affirms. [Note, however, that this argument does not cover EĀ 50.4; see separate CBC@ entry.] Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
No |
[Unebe 1970] Unebe Toshihide 畝部俊英. "Jiku Butsunen no kenkyū: Kan'yaku Zōichi agon kyō no yakushutsu wo megutte 竺仏念の研究 漢訳『増壱阿含経』の訳出をめぐって." Nagoya daigaku bungaku bu kenkyū ronshū 名古屋大学文学部研究論集 51 (1970): 3-38. |
Mizuno Kōgen had argued that a number of individual Āgama discourses scattered through the canon are vestiges of second translations of the Ekottarikāgama and Madhyamāgama [Mizuno also ascribed both of these otherwise lost collections to Zhu Fonian, while supporting the traditional ascriptions of the extant full collections T125 and T26 respectively to Saṅghadeva --- though Unebe does not address this aspect of Mizuno's argument directly]. Unebe notes that in fact, prefaces credit Zhu Fonian as the actual translator of EĀ (like a range of other texts), and also document other collaborations with *Dharmanandin (the reported "translator" of the supposedly lost "second EĀ"). On this basis, Unebe explores the hypothesis that in fact, the extant EĀ T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian. He bases his argument primarily on internal evidence, viz., the close study of a limited set of interrelated stylistic markers, though he also pays ample attention to external evidence (in the biographies, catalogues, and primary documents of CSZJJ, etc.). In fact, Unebe also presents his study in part as a methodological model and overt manifesto for better attention to internal evidence in attribution studies. Unebe first surveys external evidence to identify all the works that are ascribed to ZFn as the real translator in one source or another: T1, T125, T194, T212, T309, T384, T385, T656, T1505, T1543, T1549, and T2045. He then explains his method for the treatment of internal evidence using the example of translations of samyaksaṃbuddha, on which he had already published previously. The core of Unebe's argument about Zhu Fonian's works centers on terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones (*āryāṣṭāṅgamārga). Unebe compares translations of these terms in translators from An Shigao down to Zhu Fonian, Saṅghadeva and Kumārajīva (results tabulated, 26-27). From the ZFn corpus, Unebe examines translations of individual members of this eightfold set in T1, T125, T194, T309, T1505, T1543, T1549. He finds that generally speaking, Zhu Fonian consistently renders samyak- (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). This is in striking contrast to the usual practice of all other translators in the same period, who use zheng 正. The terms with deng- therefore constitute a strong marker of Zhu Fonian's style and corpus. Unebe finds two exceptions to this pattern in Zhu Fonian's corpus. First, the Dīrghāgama T1 never uses terms with deng-, but always uses zheng-. Second, the pattern in EĀ T125 is even more peculiar. There, we find two groups: both deng- and zheng-. Renditions with deng-, moreover, are only found in six times, in a small group of EĀ discourses: 10.2, 19.2, 23.9 (twice), 24.5, 42.3 (see p. 11). Unebe deduces that the zheng-type renderings point to revision of EĀ at some time after it was originally produced. Since the deng-type renderings are more typical of Zhu Fonian, Unebe proposes that they preserve traces of the original “Dharmanandin translation”, for which Zhu Fonian served as the actual translator, and which has generally been considered lost. Unebe argues that this evidence allows us to draw several inferences about our extant EĀ T125 (28-29). First, it shows clearly that Zhu Fonian was involved in the production of the text in some form, at some stage of its history. Second, it shows that the text includes a layer reflecting revision. Third, it allows Unebe to nuance the very notion of ascription and translatorship for this case. Against the traditional notion of two (independent) translations (and against Mizuno, who accepts this notion), Unebe proposes that it is more reasonable to think in terms of an initial translation, and then a subsequent revision of that translation (he extends this argument to the Madhyamāgama as well). For Unebe, the texts regarded by Mizuno as the "alternative" translations of EĀ and MĀ (which Mizuno believes were due to Zhu Fonian) were probably the pre-revision (actual) translations, produced in both cases by Zhu Fonian. In support of this hypothesis, Unebe cites four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MĀ", and two from his "alternate EĀ", which feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MĀ); and T127 and T140 (EĀ). This inference implies that Saṅghadeva is the most likely candidate for the layer of revision preserved in the extant EA T125—but Unebe notes that this is only a possibility, and the reviser need not have been Saṅghadeva. Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2023b] Nattier, Jan. "On Two Previously Unidentified Verses in Zhi Qian's Hybrid Dharmapada." ARIRIAB 26 (2023): 215-252. — 219 n. 19 |
Nattier notes that EĀ 52.7 features an "unacknowledged citation ... with some changes in wording" from T210: T125 2.827b13-16, from T210 4.574a12–15. 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. — 13 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Lin Jia’an argues that the translation of some of the terms in the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 is closer to that in Zhu Fonian’s translations [that to that of Saṅghadeva]. They refer to Lin Jia’an 林家安. “Xiancun Han yi Zengyi ahan jing zhi yizhe kao” 現存漢譯《增一阿含經》之譯者考. MA thesis, Yuanguang foxue yanjiu suo 圓光佛學研究所 (2009). Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2013] Palumbo, Antonello. An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經. Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research Series 7. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Co., 2013. — 48, 94, 271-272, and infra |
Based on a complex examination of a host of external evidence (including catalogue entries and Dao’an’s prefaces) and intertextual relations with the Fenbie gong de lun 分別功德論 T1507 [for which he prefers the title Zengyi ahan jing shu 增一阿含經疏, as given in CSZJJ] and other texts, Palumbo proposes the following timeline for the production of various versions of the *Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 (EĀ), eventually resulting in the extant T125. Palumbo argues that our evidence indicates the one-time existence of four redactions in total (summaries at Palumbo 48, 94, 271-272): 1. Work on some version of EĀ began early in 384. Palumbo refers to Dao'an's Preface to the "Sūtra of Saṅgharakṣa" 僧伽羅剎經 T194 for information about a preliminary translation of EĀ in 46 juan, produced alongside a version of the Madhyamāgama, and complete by December 28 384 (the day on which T194 was completed) (Palumbo 45-46, 54) (十一月三十日乃了也。此年出中阿含六十卷。增一阿含四十六卷。伐鼓擊析[柝SYM]之中而出斯百五卷, CSZJJ T2145 [LV] 71b20-22). This is the version that Palumbo counts as the first redaction. Palumbo identifies this recension with Mizuno's "alternate" translation of EĀ (https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/source/4/), especially the Gopālaka-sūtra 放牛經 T123 (Palumbo explicitly cautions that "we cannot be entirely sure whether all the 20 parallels located by Mizuno were indeed part of" this EĀ recension). 2. According to Dao'an's preface to T125 itself (discussed by Palumbo 36-49, with a full translation 39-44), work on (that version of) the text began in summer 384 (May to August), with the original text recited by *Dharmananda 曇摩難提/曇摩難陀 [scholarship to date has usually reconstructed this name as Dharmanandin; Palumbo gives his rationale for this different reconstruction at 5 n. 12---SC], Zhu Fonian as the translator, and Tansong 曇嵩 as the amanuensis. Dao'an states that this version of the text was in 41 juan (divided into two parts of 26 and 15 juan respectively), with a total of 472 sūtras. This version was complete by February 385 (以秦建元二十年來詣長安...至來年春乃訖。為四十一卷。分為上下部。上部二十六卷, CDZJJ T2145 [LV] 64b8-12). According to Palumbo's reconstruction, the result of this work was a second redaction. 3. With Senglüe 僧略 and Sengmao’s 僧茂 assistance in proofreading, Dao’an and Fahe 法和 further revised the text for a period of 40 days, which Palumbo places in March/April 385. This word resulted in Palumbo's third redaction, also in 41 juan and 472 sūtras, but now with one additional scroll of summaries compiled by Dao'an and Fahe (this reported additional fascicle has not been transmitted). 4. Later, Saṅghadeva and Fahe, discontent with the accuracy of this work, extensively revised or retranslated EĀ again (Palumbo 66-82, esp. 70, 75-76), as part of a larger project in which they aimed to rework all the products of Dao'an's group, and reportedly achieved their aim for quite a number of texts. Palumbo's principal primary source for this development is Daoci's Preface to the Madhyamāgama (which he translates, 68-70). Daoci lists the texts produced by Dao'an's team, and then says that Saṅghadeva and Fahe issued anew the "Abhidharma" and the *Vibhāṣā 廣說, and "all those sūtras and Vinaya [texts]" produced by the Dao'an group, excepting only the Madhyamāgama itself (which was to follow), T194, T1547 and the *Prātimokṣa (即從提和更出阿毘曇及廣說也。自是之後。此諸經律漸皆譯正。唯中阿鋡僧伽羅叉婆須蜜從解脫緣。未更出耳, CSZJJ T2145 [LV] 64a2-5). This statement clearly implies that the pair produced a new version of EĀ. Palumbo argues that this work was most probably done in Luoyang between 390 and early 391 (76). Palumbo believes that most probably, no new Indic Vorlage was available for this work, so that it would have been largely of the nature of a revision of the Chang'an text. On the basis of far-ranging and highly complex arguments, Palumbo further argues that his hypothetical Recensions 1 and 3, in particular, differed somewhat in content. In part, his argument to this effect rests upon further arguments that associate Recension 1 with the Zhuanji sanzang ji zazang zhuan 撰集三藏及雜藏傳 T2026, and the production of Recension 3 with T1507. As already mentioned, Palumbo believes that internal evidence associates T2026 with a scattered collection of texts identified by Mizuno as vestiges of a one-time alternative translation of EĀ, and with the *Gopālaka-sūtra T123 in particular. On this basis, he argues that Mizuno's "alternate EĀ" in fact represents surviving fragments of Recension 1. He believes, then, that T2026 was produced alongside Recension 1, and complete by July 384. By contrast, the association of the extant T125 with T1507 is rather obvious, since T1507 comments on the first three and a half chapters of EĀ (in a manner that shows it knows a text very close to the extant T125). Palumbo argues, on the basis of fine-grained examination of internal evidence, that T1507 was compiled by the original team that translated EĀ, including Dao'an, Dharmanandin, Zhu Fonian, and possibly Zhao Zheng 趙整 (see separate CBC@ entry at https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/text/2155/). He believes that T1507 was probably in its present form by Dao'an's death (which he places a few months later than the traditional date, in summer 385). He also believes that the authors of T1507 knew a version of the collection very close to the extant T125, not just for the chapters they comment upon, but for the remainder of the collection as well (see esp. 274 w. nn. 6-13, where he aims to demonstrate "references" in T1507 to EĀ 24.5, 29.6, 29.9, 30.3, 32.5, 26.5, 42.3, and 50.4). He therefore believes that T125 was also complete, at least in content, by Dao'an's death, though he shows, on the basis of ample evidence, that the sequence and structure of the collection (or collections) referred to as Zengyi ahan jing was quite volatile at least down to the early sixth century (129-144). Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
No |
[Lin Jia'an 2009] Lin Jia’an 林家安. “Xiancun Han yi Zengyi ahan jing zhi yizhe kao 現存漢譯增一阿含經之譯者考.” MA Thesis, Taiwan: Yuan Kuang Institute of Buddhist Studies 圓光佛學研究所, 2009. |
Lin Jia'an argues that Zhu Fonian revised EĀ around 410, and that the extant T125 is the product of these revisions. Lin argues that the excerpts from an "EĀ" in JLYX are too different from the extant T125 to stem from the same text. He holds that these citations are remnants of the original "Dharmanandin" translation, produced by Dao'an's team in Chang'an in 384-385. Lin's main basis for this identification is the fact that the highest juan number mentioned in JLYX is 41—which is also the number of fascicles reported for the original translation by Dao'an; Lin also believes he can show other structural homologies between the fascicle numbers reported in JLYX, and information or inferences about this original 41-fascicle version. The received T126 differs substantially from both the JLYX citations and Saṅghadeva's style. Lin proposes that T125—which is longer than the original, if we judge by number of fascicles—was produced by a revision and expansion of the first translation (not a new translation). He then considers three candidates for the author of these revisions: Saṅghadeva, Dharmanandin, and Zhu Fonian. He eliminates Dharmanandin on the grounds that he supposedly left China soon after the initial translation of both Āgamas (125) [Lin is seemingly unaware of the translation date of 391 for T2045 --- MR]. Lin also eliminates Saṅghadeva, on the basis of examination of the catalogues, and on the cogent grounds that the translation style of T125 differs too greatly from Saṅghadeva's style as evidenced by MĀ T25 (126-132). He then shows that the wording of five formulae in T125 is unique to Zhu Fonian's translations, establishing that Zhu Fonian is the translator (130-134); and further, by comparison of a single passage in a JLYX citation with the T125 parallel, that the T125 version alone contains a pair of further formulaic items unique to Zhu Fonian (135-136), thus supposedly establishing that the revisions that transformed the original translation into our extant T125 were also achieved by Zhu Fonian. Lin dates this conjectured revision by Zhu Fonian to ca. 410 CE. I cannot discover his reasons for this date. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|