| Identifier | T0007 [T] |
| Title | 大般涅槃經 [T] |
| Date | 5th century [Radich 2018a] |
| Unspecified | Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Faxian, 法顯 [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Iwamatsu 1976b] Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫. “Nehan gyō shōhon no hon’yakusha 涅槃経小本の翻訳者.” IBK 25, no. 1 (1976): 244-247. |
In an earlier study (1976a), Iwamatsu points out that the information in the catalogues about translations of the so-called “small” 小本 Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is extraordinarily confused. This confusion extends not only to the ascriptions of various texts, but also to considerable variation in titles and reported content. Between them, the different catalogues report a total of seven such texts by different translators, though no single catalogue reports all the different versions. Only four texts are now extant: 佛般泥洹經 T5, ascribed in the Taishō to Bo Fazu白法祖; 般泥洹經 T6, which the Taishō treats as anonymous; 大般涅槃經 T7, ascribed to Faxian法顯; and 方等般泥洹經 T378, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. (Iwamatsu notes that T378 is fundamentally different in content to the other three texts; see below.) In addition, the catalogues ascribe similar titles to *Lokakṣema, Faxian 法賢, and Zhi Qian. Iwamatsu states that no scholars have ever studied these supposedly lost texts, or ascriptions of a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to these figures, as a problem in its own right. The conclusion of Iwamatsu’s first study is that there only ever existed four such texts, and the apparent multiplication of texts stems from errors in LDSBJ; the supposedly separate text ascribed to Faxian 法賢 was none other than a ghost text created by an erroneous report about T7, and the text ascribed to Zhi Qian was a ghost created by erroneous information about T378. In this follow-up study (1976b), Iwamatsu adds to the mix reports about ascriptions of similar titles to two other figures: An Faqin安法欽 and Guṇabhadra. He states that a text of only one juan was ascribed to Guṇabhadra down to KYL, when Zhisheng found another juan, but judged on the basis of the style that the text was in fact by Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa, and therefore reascribed it to the E. Jin as an anonymous text (the resulting text is our current T6). Iwamatsu aims to resolve the problem of ascriptions of all four of our extant texts, primarily on the basis of a reconsideration of external evidence. He first eliminates An Faqin from consideration, saying that Faqin himself never appears in any source until LDSBJ, i.e. he may even be a “ghost translator”, and moreover that he also never appears in any other Sui catalogue. He also eliminates Bo Fazu, saying that in CSZJJ, he is ascribed with only one text, which is moreover said to have been lost; in LDSBJ, however, he is suddenly ascribed with 23 works. This suggests that all our received ascriptions to Fazu, too, are based upon the unreliable testimony of LDSBJ. Iwamatsu doubts further if Faxian 法顯 ever translated such a text, because CSZJJ’s list of texts collected by Faxian in India includes nothing of the sort. He suggests that the idea that Faxian translated a “smaller” Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra is based upon a misreading of the following line in Faxian’s travelogue: 又得一卷方等般泥洹經, T2085 (LI) 864b27; for Iwamatsu, this report probably refers only to the (“Mahāyāna”) *Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, which Faxian famously brought back to China and translated with Buddhabhadra and Baoyun (in six juan), so that 卷 is merely being used as a counter for the text as a whole, but he suggests that someone may have read it as listing two texts in succession, thus: 又得(1)一卷、(2)方等 般泥洹經... Having thus narrowed the field down to four candidates, Iwamatsu concludes rather hastily by claiming that on the basis of (unspecified) features of translation style and phraseology, the actual attributions for these texts should be: T5 should be ascribed to Zhi Qian; T6 to Dharmarakṣa; T7 to Guṇabhadra, and T378 should be regarded as an anonymous text of the Western Jin. He says further that these re-ascriptions for T5 and T7 are “unproblematic”, but that T6 is atypical in style for Dharmarakṣa. Iwamatsu proposes that this fact can be explained by the assumption that it was an early work, and that Dharmarakṣa also referred to “Zhi Qian’s” text as he worked and was influenced by it. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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.7, 425 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善) |
Although 大般涅槃經 T7 is recorded as translated by Faxian 法顯, according to Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 there is a view that regards this same T7 as recorded as lost in the catalogues. He refers to Matsumoto’s Nehan gyō ron 涅槃經論 in Shūkyō Kenkyū 宗教研究. 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. — 92, 95-98 |
Sakaino proposes that An Faxian 安法賢, like An Faqin 安法欽, probably in fact never existed, but rather, was a ghost created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shengjian 聖堅. Unsurprisingly, then, he rejects all ascriptions to An Faxian. According to Sakaino, two titles, the 羅摩迦經 (3 juan) (cf. T294) and the Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 (2 juan) (cf. T7?), are ascribed to An Faxian 安法賢 in LDSBJ. Sakaino points out that the Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 could not have been translated in the Wei 魏 period, since the word niepan 涅槃 was not in use then. 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. — 565-569 |
Sakaino claims that the ascription of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 (3 juan) T7 to Faxian 法顯 is a crude mistake on the part of Zhisheng. It is widely accepted that Faxian translated the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvaṇa-mahāsūtra 大般泥洹經 T376 and a Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等泥洹經 (*Vaipulya-nirvāṇa-sūtra). Zhisheng maintains, according to Sakaino without any basis, that T7 (3 juan) is to be identified with the same Fangdeng nihuan jing, claiming that some say that this title is in 3 juan, and that the Fangdeng (*vaipulya/vaitulya) 方等 in the title should be removed, as it should have been added to the title of the Mahāyāna text, T376, instead. Sakaino conjectures that Zhisheng made these claims because he wondered why Faxian had translated two Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa Sūtras, and because T7 was not given an ascription in catalogues—indeed, sometimes not even listed–so that it could actually have been the Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等泥洹經 (565-566). Sakaino maintains further that T7 is likely to be Guṇabhadra’s work. His reasons to claiming so include the fact that Faxian 法顯 never used the term niepan 涅槃 for nirvaṇa in his works, while Guṇabhadra almost exclusively uses it. Sakaino states that CSZJJ made this mistake for some reason, and the wrong ascription was accepted by later catalogues. However, Sakaino accepts that it is difficult to be sure that T7 is Guṇabhadra’s work, since other works of Guṇabhadra are very different from T7 in character, and the vocabulary of Guṇabhadra’s Saṃyutkāgama 雜阿含經 T99 contains many cases in which different translation words are given for one original word, and thus does not give decisive evidence. However, Sakaino mentions a few terms that strongly indicate that the text is most likely Guṇabhadra’s translation, such as 迦比羅斾兜 for Kapilavastu (迦毘羅斾兜 T189, v.l. 迦比羅旆兜, 明藏等) (566-569). 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. — 534-535 |
The last part of the Fo guo ji 佛國記 contains a sentence reading 夏坐訖法顯離諸師久欲趣長安。但所營事重。遂便南下向都。就禪師出經律藏; T2085 (LI) 866b15-17. Sakaino reads this sentence to mean that after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends again, but decided to go to Jiankang 建康 instead because Buddhabhadra, a prominent translator of scriptures, was there, and it was more important to contribute to the diffusion of the Dharma. Sakaino infers that the translation work of the texts ascribed to Faxian was actually done by Buddhabhadra, and Faxian’s role in translating was rather small. Those texts were ascribed/co-ascribed to Faxian out of respect to him as the one who brought the original to China. Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of texts related to Faxian. For example, T1425 (ascribed today to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (following CSZJJ’s general policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work). On the other hand, LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra, although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯. 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. — 633 |
A *Nirvaṇa-sūtra 泥洹經 in one juan, ascribed to Guṇabhadra, is listed in CSZJJ. Sakaino claims that this notice is incorrect, and the Nirvāṇa-sūtra 涅槃經 in three juan ascribed to 法顯 [大般涅槃經 T7] is the one that should be attributed to Guṇabhadra. Later catalogues followed CSZJJ in making this mistake. 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. — 534-535 |
Sakaino reads a sentence in the last part of the Foguo ji 佛國記 (夏坐訖法顯離諸師久欲趣長安。但所營事重。遂便南下向都。就禪師出經律藏 (T2085 [LI] 866b15-17) as describing the situation that, after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends, but decided to go to Jiankang 建康 instead, because Buddhabhadra, a prominent translator of scriptures, was there, and it was more important to contribute to the diffusion of the Dharma than to go to Chang'an. From this understanding, Sakaino infers that the translation work of the texts ascribed to Faxian was actually done by Buddhabhadra, and Faxian’s role in translating was rather small. Those texts were ascribed/co-ascribed to Faxian out of respect to him as the one who brought the original to China. Then Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of those texts related to Faxian. For example, the 僧祇律 (摩訶僧祇律 T1425 ascribed to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (as it is CSZJJ’s policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work), while LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra (although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. |
For the 異出經緣 of CSZJJ, LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8 reports a different number of texts and fascicles to that found in our present CSZJJ. Naitō suggests that the difference in numbering between the LDSBJ report and the transmitted CSZJJ lies in the last 9 texts in the list. [T2145 (LV) 15a8-25 --- MR.] This list of nine texts also differs in form from the bulk of the section that precedes it. The preceding 34 texts in the same list are divided in an orderly manner into sūtra-vinaya-śāstra, but these nine items mess up that categorisation [all are sūtras again --- MR.] Annotations to earlier items give number of fascicles, but here, only names of translators are given. Further, there are items among the nine that were already recorded in the preceding, more orderly list of 34, but which are here recorded again with errors. On this basis, Naitō proposes that these 9 items are a later addition, added in a rather sloppy manner. This section also features the 長者須達經 of *Guṇavr̥ddhi 求那毘地, which appears in a list at the end of the 撰出經論 that Naitō also suspects of being a later addition. He therefore proposes that this section was added at the same time as that list, sometime after 504. The titles affected by this hypothesis are: 成具光明經 For the same list, Su Jinren (20, without reference to Naitō) also points out some of the same problems. Su does not believe that this list could have been added to the text by Sengyou himself, partly on the basis of the fact that the annotations appear to reflect too much ignorance. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019b] Radich, Michael. “Was the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T7 Translated by ‘Faxian’? An Exercise in the Computer-Assisted Assessment of Attributions in the Chinese Buddhist Canon.” Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies: E-journal 2, no. 1 (2019): 229-279. |
Abstract: "In the Taishō canon, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T no. 7 is attributed to Faxian 法顯. However, on the basis of an examination of reports in the catalogues about various Chinese versions of the ‘mainstream’ Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫 once questioned whether Faxian ever translated any such text. Iwamatsu argued further, on the basis of unspecified features of translation terminology and phraseology, that T no. 7 should instead be reascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. This paper will examine the problem of the attribution of T no. 7 on the basis of a detailed examination of its language." Radich concludes (266-267): "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra T no. 7 is much closer to the style of certain texts ascribed to ‘Guṇabhadra’ than it is to ‘Faxian’ .... We should, therefore, overturn the ascription to Faxian carried by ‘FX’-MPNS in the Taishō. At the same time, however, it is not safe to follow Iwamatsu and simply re-ascribe the text to ‘Guṇabhadra’. In fact, markers distinguishing ‘FX’-MPNS from the ‘Faxian’ corpus are found much more densely in the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] than in any other ‘Guṇabhadra’ text. Further, a range of highly specific markers associate ‘FX’-MPNS [T7] and Guoqu [T189] very closely with two further bodies of material, the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383], and the Buddhacarita T no. 192 and/or the Fo benxing jing T no. 193. Stylistically speaking, these four (or five) texts comprise a tightly interrelated group, which are also connected by common themes and content." Radich followed this work up with a further examination of internal evidence for close intertextual relations between T7, T189, and T383 [publication actually appeared chronologically earlier], Radich 2018a (see separate CB@ entry). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2018a] Radich, Michael. “A Triad of Texts from Fifth-Century Southern China: The *Mahāmāyā-sūtra, the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing, and a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra ascribed to Faxian.” Journal of Chinese Religions 46, no. 1 (2018): 1-41. DOI: 10.1080/0737769X.2018.1435370. |
Abstract: "In previous work [Radich 2019b; see separate CBC@ entry], I have shown that the (Mainstream, “smaller”) Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra ascribed to Faxian is in fact almost certainly not his work, and that internal evidence closely associates it with two other texts: the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] ascribed to Guṇabhadra and the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383] ascribed to Tanjing. This paper analyzes the content of these texts, in order to ascertain (as much as possible) their likely relation to one another; the context in which they were composed; and their relations to that context. In addressing questions of context, the analysis applies innovative computer-assisted methods, which allow us to pinpoint detailed clues of highly specific intertextual relationships among a broad range of texts. This enables us to discover in the present triad of texts internal evidence pointing to close relations to a very specific body of literature in the fifth century." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. |
Abstract: "This study examines the biography of the monk Baoyun 寶雲 (376?-449) and lists all the titles of the translation projects in which Baoyun was involved. By comparing the information provided by different Buddhist catalogues, several discrepancies between the information on Baoyun provided by Buddhist bibliographer Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) and by later accounts became evident. This study contextualizes the life of Baoyun in a broader historical perspective and presents the life of a monk who was a companion of Faxian 法顯 (336?-422) in his famous journey to the west, fluent in Indic languages, and a proficient translator." Lettere argues that we can see a gradual process by which the true scope of Baoyun's activities as a translator, originally represented rather clearly by Sengyou and the sources he collects (CSZJJ), was already diminished or undermined by Huijiao (GSZ), Fei Zhangfang (LCSBJ), and Fajing; and also seems to have suffered from being overshadowed by the reputation and legends that accrued to the personality of Faxian. In the course of her treatment of biographical and other external sources on Baoyun (CSZJJ, GSZ, and documents like prefaces), Lettere notes evidence that Baoyun might have been the principal translator for the following works: T192 (Lettere holds unequivocally that this work is "erroneously attributed to Dharmakṣema/Tan Wuchen 曇無讖", following Willemen 2009 [in error this reference is given as Chen Jinhua]: xiv-xvi); a "new Sukhāvatī" 新無量壽 [sic, for *Amitāyus] [Lettere's citation of studies by Nogami 1950, Gotō 2006, 2007, and Nattier 2003 implies that she identifies this title with T360 -- MR]; with Zhiyan, according to Sengyou's CSZJJ, three titles: the Puyao jing 普耀經, the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經, and the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 [cf. for the last two titles respectively Avaivartikacakra 廣博嚴淨經 T268, and Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590 -- MR]; the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda 勝鬘經 [T353]; the Za’ahan jing 雜阿含經 (*Saṃyuktāgama) and the Fagu jing 法鼓經 [Lettere again does not go into the problem of identification with extant texts, but cf. Saṃyuktāgama T99 and the *Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra T270 -- MR]; a Mahāparinirvāṇa in six fascicles 六卷泥洹 [cf. T7 -- MR]. [To this list we should add the Laṅkāvatāra T670; Lettere omits to list it, but cf. 後於丹陽郡譯出勝鬘楞伽經, GSZ T2059 (L) 344b3, which in fact comprises two titles, the Śrīmālādevī and the Laṅkāvatāra; cf. Lettere 265 n. 9 -- MR.] Lettere also notes evidence that Baoyun may have composed a lost travelogue of his journeys, entitled Youlü waiguo 遊履外國. In LDSBJ, two titles are added to Baoyun's credit; Fufa zang jing 付法藏經 [cf. T2058] and Jingdu sanwei jing 淨度三昧經 [cf. X15]; and an *Akṣayamatinirdeśa 無盡意菩薩 to the joint translatorship of Baoyun and Zhiyan [cf. T397(12)]. Lettere notes that the poor reputation of Fei as a cataloguer makes these ascriptions less plausible. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Iwamatsu 1976a] Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫. “Daihatsunehan gyō ni okeru ichi ni no mondaiten: Nehan gyō shōhon no honden o megutte 大般涅槃経における一二の問題点 涅槃経小本の翻伝をめぐって.” IBK 24, no. 2 (1976): 154-155. |
Iwamatsu points out that the information in the catalogues about translations of the so-called “small” 小本 Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is extraordinarily confused. This confusion extends not only to the ascriptions of various texts, but also to considerable variation in titles and reported content. Between them, the different catalogues report a total of seven such texts by different translators, though no single catalogue reports all the different versions. Only four texts are now extant: 佛般泥洹經 T5, ascribed in the Taishō to Bo Fazu白法祖; 般泥洹經 T6, which the Taishō treats as anonymous; 大般涅槃經 T7, ascribed to Faxian法顯; and 方等般泥洹經 T378, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. (Iwamatsu notes that T378 is fundamentally different in content to the other three texts.) In addition, the catalogues ascribe similar titles to *Lokakṣema, Faxian 法賢, and Zhi Qian. Iwamatsu states that no scholars have ever studied these supposedly lost texts, or ascriptions of a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to these figures, as a problem in its own right. The conclusion of Iwamatsu’s first study is that there only ever existed four such texts, and the apparent multiplication of texts stems from errors in LDSBJ; the supposedly separate text ascribed to Faxian 法賢 was none other than a ghost text created by an erroneous report about T7, and the text ascribed to Zhi Qian was a ghost created by erroneous information about T378. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|