Text: Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄


Identifier [None]
Title [None]
Date [None]
Unspecified Dao'an 道安; Dharmapriya, 曇摩蜱; Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Ōno 1954]


Preferred? Source Pertains to Argument Details


[Zhisheng 730]  Zhisheng 智昇. Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL) 開元釋教錄 T2154 — T2154:55.511a22-26

This note is discussed in Kajiyoshi (1944/1980) 68-69. The text had been confused by bibliographers between Dao'an and Zhisheng with 摩訶般若鈔經 T226, ascribed to Dharmamitra and Zhu Fonian, but Zhisheng shows that he is clearly aware that it was in fact a version of the Pañcaviṃśatikāsāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, and was no longer extant by his time. It therefore differs in content from T226, which is, in fact, an alternate translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā.

Entry author: Michael Radich



[Ōno 1954]  Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 82

Dao’an was involved in the translation of the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經, and he gives the title as 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄. However, the extant T226 does not contain the term boluore 鉢羅若 [for *prajñā] at all, instead using only banre 般若 throughout.

[Ōno clearly intends to imply by this that T226 cannot be the text Daoan knew and helped to produce, which should therefore be lost. In fact, however, 鉢羅若, in that exact orthography, is extremely rare, and excluding false hits across word boundaries, first occurs, in translation literature, in a single transcription of a dhāraṇī in *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta’s T993 [XIX] 510c9; and thereafter, always as part of the longer term 三摩地鉢羅若, a handful of times in Xuanzang’s T1605 and T1606; it is mentioned once by Jizang, so before or under the Sui, T1696 [XXXIII] 63c28. This surely introduces the possibility that it is some sort of later scribal error in the transmission of Daoan’s preface. --- MR.]

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki