Text: T0007; 大般涅槃經

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經
• T0189; 過去現在因果經
• T0192; 佛所行讚
• T0193; 佛本行經
• T0383; 摩訶摩耶經; Moye jing 摩耶經

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

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (unspecified)

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 大般涅槃經
• People: Faxian, 法顯 (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T0007

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經

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 eliminated Faxian as a candidate as well, Iwamatsu then examines a problem with the “Zhi Qian” and “Dharmarakṣa” versions. A note by Dao’an cited in CSZJJ says that both texts were equivalent to a text in the Dīrghāgama, but in fact, the content of T378, at least, does not match anything in the Dīrghāgama (unlike T5, T6 and T7, which all basically match DĀ 2遊行經 = DN 16). He points out that in fact, Dao’an died too early to know DĀ (through the Chinese translation D1) in any detail, and that most other CSZJJ notes from Dao’an equating texts to DĀ in fact turn out on examination to refer to MĀ. Iwamatsu therefore suggests that this was the case for T378 as well, and that the note should have said 中阿含, but some error crept in. MĀ does include a text with the name “Nirvāṇa sūtra” 涅槃經 (MĀ 55), but it differs completely in content from T378; but he suggests that perhaps Dao’an’s note referred to some perceived parallel between the content of T378 and the “alternate” (now lost) MĀ translated by Dharmanandin, which he says was quite different in content from the extant MĀ T26.

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

Edit

• People: Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 (translator 譯)

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經
• T0294; 佛說羅摩伽經

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

Edit

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經
• T0376; 佛說大般泥洹經
• T0745; 佛說雜藏經
• T1425; 摩訶僧祇律
• T1427; 摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本
• T1437; 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本

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

Edit

• People: Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 (translator 譯); Faxian, 法顯 (unspecified)

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經
• T0376; 佛說大般泥洹經
• T0745; 佛說雜藏經
• T1425; 摩訶僧祇律
• T1427; 摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本
• T1437; 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本

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

Edit

• People: Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 (translator 譯)

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經
• T0192; 佛所行讚
• T0268; 佛說廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經
• T0270; 大法鼓經
• T0353; 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經
• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra
• T0590; 佛說四天王經
• T0670; 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經
• T2058; 付法藏因緣傳
• T397(12); 無盡意品; Akṣayamati-nirdeśa
• X0015; Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經; Jing du jing 淨度經; 淨度三昧經

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

Edit

• People: Baoyun, 寶雲 (translator 譯)