| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Fangdeng shoulengyan jing 方等首楞嚴經 [Fei 597] |
| Date | [None] |
| Revised | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Kamata 1982] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Fei 597] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 57b7-8 |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Mindu Śūraṃgamasamādhi preface] Zhi Mindu 支慜度. Shoulengyan jing ji 首楞嚴經記. T2145 (LV) 49a16-b17. — T2145 (LV) 49b1-7 |
Zhi Mindu reports a translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi by Zhi Qian, but the supposed distinctive title for this translation, 方等首楞嚴經, appears to be first attested in the record in LDSBJ. 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. — 66-72 |
Lamotte discusses records of a Fangdeng shoulengyan jing 方等首楞嚴經, a revised version of Lokakṣema’s version supposedly produced by Zhi Qian 支謙 between 222 and 229 CE: According to Zhi Mindu 支愍度 (in T2145), this was merely a revision. Later catalogues, T2145, T2146, T2034, T2151, T2134 classified it as a new translation. Dao’an 道安, who was at that time in the north, was not aware of this version. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 206-207 |
As an example of issues related to ascriptions to Zhi Qian, Kamata discusses information in Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度 preface to his synoptic version of the Śūramgamasamādhi-sūtra 合首楞嚴經序 on the topic of a supposed lost Zhi Qian translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi (206). Kamata summarizes as follows: Zhi Qian is recorded as having translated several dozen texts from the Huangwu 黄武 era to the Jianxing 建興 era, including the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra. However, the Śūraṃgamasamādhi attributed to Zhi Qian was thought missing by the time of Zhi Mindu 支敏度, while at the same time, an “alternate version” 異本 was extant. This text contained a mix of “refined and coarse” diction, and also mixed Chinese translations and transliterations. Zhi Mindu inferred that probably the extant “alternate version” represented Zhi Qian’s revision of *Lokakṣema’s translation, which was the source of the “coarse” style and the heavy use of transliteration 胡音. On this hypothesis, Zhi Qian would have modified the text in places where he disagreed with *Lokakṣema’s rendering, but left it as it was when he agreed, and Zhi Qian’s revision would be the source of the “refined” diction and the translations of proper names. Thus, the mistaken impression arose that there had been two separate translations of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra, and one was ascribed to *Lokakṣema, and the other to Zhi Qian. The version modified by Zhi Qian was widely circulated (206). Sengyou also reports [incorrectly] that Zhi Qian translated the Śūraṃgamasamādhi separately from Lokaksemas’s work (207). Kamata states that if Zhi Mindu is correct, there must have been an initial vesrion of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi by *Lokakṣema, and the lost scripture in question should not be [solely?] ascribed to Zhi Qian. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|