| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經; Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 [Boucher 1996] |
| Date | 186 [Lamotte 2003] |
| Unspecified | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Sakaino 1935] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | Zhi Shilun, 支施崙 [Shoulengyan hou ji] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Boucher 1996] |
| "chose the wording" 自屬辭 | Zhang Tianxi 張天錫 [Shoulengyan hou ji] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Shoulengyan hou ji] Anonymous. Shoulengyan hou ji 首楞嚴後記, as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 — T2145 (LV) 49b18-49b29 |
According to this anonymous note, in 373 CE the regional ruler of Liangzhou, i.e. the regional inspector Zhang Tianxi 張天錫, sponsored the translation of the Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴 (lit. ‘brought [it] out’ 出) . While the note begins with a discussion of the Shoulengyan jing translation itself, it quickly goes on to list three other translations produced under Zhang’s supervision, and the impression one gets is that they were all executed in relatively quick succession (in any case, no specific dates are given for any of the three): 須賴、 上金光首 [cf. T817, which features an otherwise unknown protagonist by this name --- MR]、 如幻三昧 [cf. T342, ascribed in T to Dhr ---- MR]. The note then goes on to specify that the ‘hu text’ (of the Shoulengyan jing? of all four texts?) was ‘held in the hand’ 手執胡本 by a certain Zhi Shilun 支施崙, a lay devotee of Yuezhi ethnicity. We further read that on the Shoulengyan jing translation project, and perhaps also in the work on the remaining three translations (although there is some ambiguity here), the actual ‘translator’ 譯 was a certain Bo Yan 帛延, introduced as a bilingual member of the Kuchean royal clan. The record adds that the translation activities were attended by three leading officials from the regional administration and by the monks Huichang 慧常 and Jinxing 進行, as well as that Zhang Tianxi himself ‘chose the wording’ 自屬辭. Entry author: Rafal Felbur |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 9c13 |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 首楞嚴經, stating that it carried a notice about a [Zhu] Shulan version of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi in two fascicles, and notes that the title was missing from Dao'an's catalogues: 首楞嚴經二卷(別錄所載安錄先闕舊錄有叔蘭首楞嚴二卷) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Bielu CSZJJ] Bielu 別錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集. — T2145 (LV) 7a17-22 |
CSZJJ cites a/the Bie lu for the following ascriptions to Zhi Qian: 首楞嚴經二卷 ... 別錄所載, 7a17 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Bielu CSZJJ] Bielu 別錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集. |
A single note in CSZJJ credits a/the Bie lu for the ascription of three titles to Bai Yan 白延: 首楞嚴經二卷 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Bielu CSZJJ] Bielu 別錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集. — T2145 (LV) 9c13 |
CSZJJ credits a/the Bie lu for the ascription of a *Śūraṃgama-samādhi to Zhu Shulan: 首楞嚴經二卷 ... 別錄所載 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 14a15-16 |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the *Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經, saying that the Jiu lu feature a notice of a title possibly to be identified with it, the "Sichuan Shoulengyan" 蜀首楞嚴 in two fascicles: 首楞嚴經(支識首楞嚴二卷支謙首楞嚴二卷白延首楞嚴二卷竺法護更出勇伏定二卷即更出首楞嚴竺寂蘭首楞嚴[經SYM]二卷鳩摩羅什新出首楞嚴二卷舊錄有蜀首楞嚴二卷未詳誰出) Sengyou himself adds that it is unclear who translated this text: 未詳誰出 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Anon T285 preface] Anon. Jianbei jing shi zhu hu ming bing shuxu 漸備經十住胡名并書敘. — T2145 (LV) 62c11-15 |
A *Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 is among five texts said in the "Jianbei jing shi zhu hu ming bing shuxu" 漸備經十住胡名并書敘 to have been sent from Liangzhou to Dao'an in Xiangyang in 373. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Anon T285 preface] Anon. Jianbei jing shi zhu hu ming bing shuxu 漸備經十住胡名并書敘. |
The "Jianbei jing shi zhu hu ming bing shuxu" 漸備經十住胡名并書敘 reports that in 373, five texts were sent from Liangzhou to Dao'an in Xiangyang. Lamotte translates relevant portions of the document, and identifies three of these titles with the extant T222, T285 and T329. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Chen 2005] Chen, Jinhua. "Some Aspects of the Buddhist Translation Procedure in Early Medieval China: With Special References to a Longstanding Misreading of a Keyword in the Earliest Extant Buddhist Catalogue in East Asia." Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662. — 657-661 |
|
Chen lists thirty-three texts discussed in Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji for which dates are given, but where those dates cannot be corroborated by any "translation documents" [meaning primary sources discussing circumstances etc. of translation, such as colophons]: Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等般泥洹經 T378; Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Chen 2005] Chen, Jinhua. "Some Aspects of the Buddhist Translation Procedure in Early Medieval China: With Special References to a Longstanding Misreading of a Keyword in the Earliest Extant Buddhist Catalogue in East Asia." Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662. — 658 |
According to CSZJJ T2145:55.9c13. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lamotte 2003] Lamotte, Étienne, tr. Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress – An Early Mahāyāna Buddhist Scripture. translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003. — 59-65 |
Lamotte discusses records of a Shoulengyan jing in 2 juan 首楞嚴經二卷, translated by Zhi Chen (*Lokakṣema) 支讖 on 16 January 186 CE in Luoyang 洛陽. According to Lamotte, there are two lines in the bibliographic tradition regarding this translation. On the one hand, T2145, T2154, T2059 and T2105 represent the old tradition, which states that Zhi Chen translated the text on January 16th 186 and was active in China between 179 and 189. On the other hand, T2034, T2149, T2151 and T2153 represent a new tradition that Zhi Chen translated on 16 March 186 and was active between 147 and 186. The older tradition is to be preferred over the new one, because the new tradition (1) makes use of suspect documents, (2) claims that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and Pratyutpannasamādhi were each the object of a dual translation, contradicting the testament of old colophons, (3) contains improbabilities: it is unlikely that Zhi Chen had a gap of 32 years between his first translation (Akṣobhyatathāgatasya vyūha) in 147 and his second translation (Aṣṭasahāsrikā and Pratyupannasamādhi) in 179. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Lamotte 2003] Lamotte, Étienne, tr. Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress – An Early Mahāyāna Buddhist Scripture. translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003. — 72-74 |
Lamotte discusses a Shoulengyan jing, two juan 首楞嚴經二卷, supposed to have been translated by Bai Yan 白 (v.l. 帛) 延 in 258 CE in Luoyang Boma si 洛陽白馬寺: The catalogues contradict each other on this translation, and none of the bibliographers had access to it. The sources hesitate over the exact date of Bai Yan’s activity: either Zhengshi 正始 (240-249) or Ganlu 甘露 (256-260). This translation, if it ever existed, had no influence on later translation. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Lamotte 2003] Lamotte, Étienne, tr. Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress – An Early Mahāyāna Buddhist Scripture. translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003. — 74-80 |
Lamotte discusses a version of the *Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra with the title Yongfuding jing, two juan 勇伏定經二卷, reportedly translated by Dharmarakṣa on 23 May 291 CE in Chang’an 長安: According to Lamotte, the existence of this translation is fully substantiated by the catalogues. However, Sengyou made a mistake in attributing two translations (rather than one) of the Śgs titled Shoulengyan 首楞嚴 and Yongfuding 勇伏定 to Dharmarakṣa, and this mistake was reproduced in T2145, T2146, T2034, T2151 and T 2153. The error was corrected in T2154. Another possibility is that the Yongfuding 勇伏定 is a corrected title of the Shoulengyan 首楞嚴 by Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠. There was reportedly a commentary on this translation by Bo Yuan 帛遠 [aka Bo Fazu], produced in Chang’an 長安 between 291 and 306 CE. [Note: CSZJJ carries an anonymous preface to a commentary to this version of the text, 首楞嚴三昧經注序第, T2145 (LV) 48c17 ff.; the CSZJJ bio of Bo Yuan/Fazu mentions him preaching on this text, and writing a commentary to it:見祖法師在閻羅王處為王講首楞嚴經, 107c1 .... 又注首楞嚴經, 107c11; Fajing lists the commentary as a separate work, with the ascription to Bo Yuan: 首楞嚴經注解一卷(帛遠), T2146 (LV) 148a17. Lamotte treats this commentary separately, 80-81—MR.] Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Lamotte 2003] Lamotte, Étienne, tr. Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress – An Early Mahāyāna Buddhist Scripture. translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003. — 81-85 |
Lamotte discusses a version of the *Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra, the Shoulengyan jing, two juan 首楞嚴經二卷, reportedly translated by Zhu Shulan 竺淑蘭 in 291 CE in Luoyang 洛陽: For Lamotte, this translation is evidenced by Zhi Mindu’s 支愍度 testimony and by Nie Daozhen’s 聶道真 Zhongjing lu 眾經錄. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Lamotte 2003] Lamotte, Étienne, tr. Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress – An Early Mahāyāna Buddhist Scripture. translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003. — 90-93 |
Lamotte discusses a Shoulengyan jing (*Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra) in two juan 首楞嚴經二卷, translated by Zhang Tianxi 張天錫, Zhi Shilun 支施崙 and Bo Yan 帛延 in Liangzhou 涼州 in 373 CE: This translation is furnished with a colophon by an unknown hand preserved in T2145. According to Lamotte, Zhang Tianxi 張天錫 and Zhi Shilun 支施崙 were probably disciples of Dao’an 道安, who sent five texts (T222, T285, T329, Shoulengyen jing 首楞嚴經, Wubai jie 五百戒) to Dao'an in Xiangyang 襄陽 in 373. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Boucher 1996] Boucher, Daniel. "Buddhist Translation Procedures in Third-Century China: A Study of Dharmarakṣa and his Translation Idiom." PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996. — 271 |
In the appendix to his dissertation Boucher provides a list of ninety-five texts attributed to Dharmarakṣa by Sengyou in his Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145, along with a note on relevant scholarship. Among these texts is the Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra. He adds that a different translation begins “Ānanda said …”. 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. — 897-898 |
A Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 in 2 juan was ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. According to Sakaino, Dharmarakṣa translated this scripture twice. The first translation was the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 in 2 juan, recorded as missing. Sakaino quotes a comment from CSZJJ on this text: 安公云更出首楞嚴元康元年四月九日出 T2145 (LV) 9a1. Sakaino also introduces the view of Zhisheng, in KYL, that the Yongfu ding jing and the Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 were actually the same text. However, Sakaino claims that it is not reasonable to reject the existence of two translations as recorded by Dao’an. It could happen, Sakaino adds, that the same person translated one scripture twice, if he obtained a better version of the original after translating the first version. 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. — 166, 169, 195 |
Sengyou records that Dharmarakṣa translated both a Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 and a Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 (which should both correspond to the *Śūraṃgama[samādhi]-sūtra, one by transcription, one by translation), but Sakaino stated that it is highly unlikely that Dharmarakṣa translated the same text twice. KYL pointed out this mistake. Sakaino argues that the phrase geng chu Shoulengyan 更出首楞嚴, in the note on the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 reading 安公云更出首楞嚴, should mean that the Yongfu ding jing 勇伏定經 was an alternate translation of the Shouleng yan jing 首楞嚴經 ascribed to *Lokakṣema, not that Dharmarakṣa translated the same text twice. Sakaino conjectures that probably Dharmarakṣa produced his 勇伏定經 because he had a different version of the original 梵本. However, Sakaino admits that his view on this matter is not decisive, since it is still true that Dao’an mentions both titles. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|