| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Xianju jing 閑居經 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Okabe 1963] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — s.v., Vol.9, 125-129 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄) |
Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka, including 悲華經 T157. Akanuma and Nishio describe the characteristics and problems of each of them as follows. The first version is the Xian ju jing 閑居經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. Akanuma and Nishio find this title peculiar, since it cannot have come from the original title (Karuṇā-puṇḍarīka-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra), and is not related to any other alternate titles. Also, the length of the Xuan ju jing 閑居經 shown in KYL 開元錄, 1 juan, is too short. Akanuma and Nishio identifies the original word behind 閑居 as araṇya (dgon-pa), which is usually transliterated as 阿蘭若, and translated as 閑靜處. Then they look for similar words in the content of T157, and find that the name of the protagonist of the story in juan 2 and 3, 無諍念轉輪王 (離諍王 in the Qin 秦 version), viz., Aranemī (rTsibs-kyimu-khyud) could well be the source of the title given to the Xian ju jing 閑居經. Akanuma and Nishio infer that *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 and the translator of the Qin 秦 version took 無諍念 and 離諍 respectively from Sanskrit a + raṇa, and Dharmarakṣa took 閑居 from araṇemya and used it as the title. The above consideration and solution of the problem of the title 閑居經 suggest that this first version of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka 悲華經 was not a complete version, but probably only part of it, corresponding to the story in juan 2 and 3, where 無諍念轉輪王 appears as the protagonist. Thus, the length of the text, 1 juan, makes sense as well. Then, Akanuma and Nishio conjecture that probably the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka was produced after the Xian ju jing, taking the content of 無諍念轉輪王’s story as one part, rather than the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka already existing in full at the time when the Xian ju jing was translated. The second version is entitled 大乘悲分陀利經 T158 and is an anonymous scripture. It has been said that the translator lived under the Qin 秦時 (384-417), but according to Akanuma and Nishio it can be said with certainty that the text was translated about twenty to thirty years before *Dharmakṣema's version. The third version was the Bei hua jing 悲華經 translated by Daogong 道龔 of 北凉. This text has been lost and Akanuma and Nishio suspect that it might not have existed in the first place. The fourth version is the Bei hua jing 悲華經 T157 translated by *Dharmakṣema in 419, in ten juan. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Okabe 1963] Okabe Kazuo 岡部和雄 . “Jiku Hōgo no yakkyō ni tsuite 竺法護の訳経について.” IBK 11, no. 1 (1963): 148-149. |
|
Okabe’s main aim is to assess the reliability of Fei Changfang’s LDSBJ, using ascriptions to Dharmarakṣa as a test case. Okabe studies 40 ascriptions to Dharmarakṣa that appear for the first time in LDSBJ [T2034 (XLIX) 61c11-64c13], and concludes that they are highly unreliable. The same texts are generally already listed in Sengyou’s CSZJJ, but there, they appear as anonymous. In addition, the majority of these texts are identified by Sengyou as sūtras excerpted from larger collections, such as the Āgamas, the 六度集經 T152, the Mahāsaṃnipāta T397, the “Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish” 賢愚經 T202, or Dharmarakṣa’s Jātaka 生經 T154. Okabe gives the example of the Guangshiyin jing 光世音經, which is no longer extant, but which the records of other catalogues indicate was probably the Avalokiteśvara Chapter of Dharmarakṣa’s Saddharmapuṇḍarīka T263, circulated as an independent text. [This likelihood would be corroborated by the fact that 光世音 for Avalokiteśvara is probably confined to Dharmarakṣa’s works; I am grateful to Jan Nattier for pointing out this fact --- MR.] He also shows that another text in the list, the 蜜具經, which is lost but quoted in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, is an excerpt from T154, with verbatim correspondences too close for it to be considered a separate translation of the same text. A third text, the 悉鞞梨天子詣佛說偈經, is also no longer extant, but Okabe shows by comparison, again with citation in the Jing lü yi xiang, that it was an excerpt from the Saṃyuktāgama. Another six texts (離睡經 T47, 受歲經 T50, 樂想經 T56, 尊上經 T77, 意經 T82 and 應法經 T83), Okabe argues, were excerpted from the Madhayamāgama, in part following Mizuno Kōgen’s arguments about vestiges of an alternate translation of the whole MĀ collection now split up and variously attributed among our extant texts. A final example, the 身觀經 T612, Okabe says is also “absolutely identical” with a Saṃyuktāgama text [see T101(9) = T101 (II) 495b7-c23], apart from scribal errors, etc., and Okabe says that LDSBJ’s ascription to Dharmarakṣa is therefore “utter nonsense”. On the strength of these examples, Okabe argues that all forty of the texts added to Dharmarakṣa’s name by LDSBJ should be disregarded. This record lists those forty texts (names are given as in LDSBJ, and may differ slightly from Taishō titles). 光世音經 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|