| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Mohe banre boluomi shenzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪經 [Fajing 594] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Watanabe 1990] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Fei 597] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 123b22, b25 |
A Mohe banre buluomi jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪經 in one fascicle is one of six texts Fajing says has been taken from the "larger sūtra" 右六經出大品經. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 31b9 |
Sengyou lists a 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪 in one fascicle in his catalogue of extant anonymous texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 58b9 |
Fei Zhangfang lists in LDSBJ a Mohe banre boluomi zhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜呪經 in one fascicle among the translations of Zhi Qian , with a note saying he has his information from Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue and giving the alternate title Banre boluomi zhou jing 般若波羅蜜呪經. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Watanabe 1990] Watanabe Shōgo 渡辺章悟. "Kyōroku kara mita Makahannyaharamitsu shinju kyō to Makahannyaharamitsu daimyōju kyō" 経録からみた『摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪経』と『摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪経』." Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 39, no. 1 (1990): 54-58. |
Watanabe explores the relationship between traditions about a (lost) Heart Sūtra ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, the Mohe bore boluomi shenzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪經, and the Mohe bore boluomi damingzhou jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪經T250 ascribed to Kumārajīva, the oldest extant version of the text. He concludes that, despite the evidence from the catalogues, the ascription of the former to Zhi Qian and the latter to Kumārajiva is not reliable. According to the catalogues, there were two versions of the Shenzhou jing 神咒經 (A and B) and one of the Damingzhou jing 大明咒經 (C). In general, the traditional bibliographies divided into two lines: (1) on the one hand, Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146, echoed by Yancong's 彥琮 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2147 and Jingtai's 靜泰 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2148, assert that A and B are two different versions, and the translators are unknown (失訳). (2) On the other hand, Fei Changfang's 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記 T2034, which is itself a unreliable source, attributes A to Zhi Qian and does not mention B. The Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149 and the Gujin yinjing tuji 古今譯經圖紀 T2152 follow the attribution of Fei Changfang, and remark that the translator of B is unknown. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 T2154 follows T2034 and considers A and B to be the same text (同本). It is in KYL that C, attributed to Kumārajīva, first made its appearance. KYL is then followed in this regard by the Zhenyuan xinding Shijing mulu 貞元新定釋經目錄 T2157. Watanabe contends that C must be considered an apocryphon that imitated the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā (大品般若經) and other Chinese translations of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya-sūtra (般若心經). Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|