| Identifier | T0006 [T] |
| Title | 般泥洹經 [T] |
| Date | 317–420; 東晉 [T] |
| Unspecified | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Nattier 2008] |
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 |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 126–128 |
Nattier considers this text a translation of Zhi Qian 支謙. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Park 2008] Park, Jungnok. "A New Attribution of the Authorship of T5 and T6 Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, no. 1-2 (2008[2010]): 339-367. — Passim |
Park argues that both T5 and T6 are "by Zhi Qian or by one of his successors from his translation circle". Based upon archaic writing style, T5 is probably Zhi Qian's work and may be one of his earliest translations. T5 appears "earlier than T210", which Park dates around 224. T6 is probably not by Zhi Qian himself, "but a successor who produced the work possibly around 280". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Ch'en 1958] Ch'en, Kenneth. “The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra and the First Council.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 21 (1958): 128-133. — 129-130 |
Ch'en argues that we find citations from the Mahāparnirvāṇa-sūtra 般泥洹經 T6 in Xi Chao's 郗超 (336–377) Feng fa yao 奉法要. Given the fact that Xi Chao died in 377, this means that T6 must date before 377. Ch'en uses this evidence to argue against Tang Yongtong, who argues on the basis of the Sui catalogues that T6 was tranlsated by Guṇabhadra; Han Wei liang Jin Nanbei chao Fojiao shi (602). Ch'en also notes that the ascription to Guṇabhadra was doubted by Zhisheng in KYL. The citations in question, which feature a measure of paraphrasing and imperfect matching, are: 經云。心作天心作人心作地獄心作畜生。乃至得道者也亦心也, T2102 (LII) 87a13-14 = 心之行無不為，得道者亦心也。心作天，心作人，心作鬼神畜生地獄，皆心所為也, T6 (I) 181a25-27. 泥洹經曰。五道無安唯無為快, T2102 (LII) 88a12-13 = 五道無安，唯泥洹樂, T6 (I) 189b22-23 [however, the phrase 唯無為快 is actually matched at T5 (I) 170c8 --- MR]. 泥洹經云。心識靜休則不死不生, T2102 (LII) 88c25-26 = 心識情休，則不死不復生, T6 (I) 181a21. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2003] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. “Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo yaku Ryūse bosatsu hongi kyō no shiritsu ni tsuite 漢語仏典に おける偈の研究−竺法護訳『龍施菩薩本起経』の詩律をめぐって [A Study of gāthās in the Chinese Buddhist Canon: On the meter in the Longshi nü pusa benqi jing translated by Dharmarakṣa].” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 52, no. 1 (2003): 215-219. — 218 |
In the course of a more complex argument about T558, Saitō suggests that at either the entirety of MPNS 般泥洹經 T6, regarded in the canon as an "Anonymous E. Jin" 不載譯人附東晉錄 text, or at least the verse portions thereof, is in fact by Zhi Qian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2001] Saitō Takanobu [Qiteng Longxin] 斉藤隆信. “Zhi Qian suoyi jingdian zhong jiesong de yanjiu: sibu jingdian zhong de Hanyizhe 支謙所译经典中偈颂的研究―四部经典中的汉译者.” Zhongguo Foxueyuan xuebao “Fayuan” 中国佛学院学报《法源》 19 (2001): 63-73. — 67-70 |
As part of a larger series of studies of rhyming verse in Chinese Buddhist texts (especially but not exclusively translation texts), Saitō argues that because it contains such verse, which is unusual, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 般泥洹經 T6 is in fact by Zhi Qian. In other studies, Saitō had already argued that rhyming verse of this type is characteristic of Zhi Qian. Referring to earlier studies by Iwamatsu Asao, he notes that prior scholars have propounded two main theories about the translatorship of the text, one ascribing it to Zhi Qian, and the other to Dharmarakṣa. He writes somewhat dismissively of the hope that other, more usual methods, based on either the external evidence of the catalogues or the internal evidence of translation terminology and phraseology, can resolve this question, and argues that his own method, using rhyming verse as a touchstone, is therefore our best hope. In his own earlier studies, Saitō had found that only four texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa contained rhyming verse (T154, T182a/b, T186, and T623 --- note that Saitō confusingly gives the title of T623, 如來獨證自*誓*三昧經, incorrectly as 如來獨證自*制*三昧經, and of the alternate translation ascribed to An Shigao, 自*誓*三昧經 T622, as 自*制*三昧經). In each case, he holds that there is reason to believe that at least the verse portions may in fact derive from earlier Zhi Qian translations. He therefore argues that such verse is not characteristic of Dharmarakṣa, and its presence in T6 allows us to determine that the text is in fact due to Zhi Qian. He argues further that records exist indicating that a fanbai 梵唄 ("Sanskrit-style hymn") was composed on the theme of the MPNS by Kang Senghui 康僧會, based upon the reported translation by Zhi Qian. Although Kang Senghui's text has been lost, Saitō argues that we can find in the present T6 a set of verses which are likely to have formed the basis for this fanbai. Given that Kang Senghui is almost certainly too early to have worked on the basis of a text by Dharmarakṣa, this is additional support for the ascription of T6 to Zhi Qian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Link 1961] Link, Arthur. “The Earliest Chinese Account of the Compilation of the ‘Tripiṭaka’ (I).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 81, no. 2 (1961): 87-103. — 94 n. 74 |
“Recently Kenneth Ch’en...shows clearly that since [the Banniyuan jing 般泥洹經 T6] is quoted by Hsi Ch’ao [Xi Chao] (336-377) in the latter’s Feng fa-yao...the terminus ad quem for its appearance would have to be 377 A.D.” Link points out that this would make it impossible that T6 was translated by Guṇabhadra, as argued by Tang Yongtong (in an unspecified publication). Citing Ch’en, “The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and the First Council,” HJAS 21 (1958): 128-133. 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 |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 233-234 |
According to Saitō, the anonymous Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 般泥洹經 T6 is said to be the work of either Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa. Saitō claims that the scripture is Zhi Qian’s work, because rhymed verses appear evenly in different parts of the text, which is a characteristic of Zhi Qian’s work, and never seen in Dharmarakṣa; Saitō points out that, in T154 and T186, only some of the verses rhyme 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. — 144, 555-565 |
According to Sakaino, Sengyou states of the title Da bannihuan jing 大般泥洹經 that according to Doa'an, it is taken from DĀ, but adds a note of his own that it is different from the DĀ of his own time 安公云出長阿含祐案今長阿含與此異 [T2145 (LV) 6c15]. Sakaino supposes that the Da bannihuan jing that Sengyou saw was different from the Da bannihuan jing that Dao’an listed, since Dao’an appears to refer to the Nihuan jing 泥洹經 of "hīnayāna", while Sengyou probably was talking about a Mahāyāna text. Sakaino then claims that Dao’an was right and the extant anonymous Nihuan jing [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 般泥洹經 T6 in 2 juan classified as anonymous --- AI] should be the one ascribed to Zhi Qian [by Dao’an], pointing out also that there is no anonymous Nihuan jing listed in Dao’an or Sengyou (144). Sakaino further states that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖 (2 juan) (T5), as well as T6, should be re-ascribed to Zhi Qian, claiming that these two texts must have been translated by the same person. A Zhi Qian version of MPNS was listed in traditional catalogues since CSZJJ. The Da bannihuan jing 大般泥洹經 ascribed to Zhi Qian in Dao’an’s catalogue should be either T5 or T6 (550-551). Sakaino then offers the following comparisons of the translation terms for three sets of words used in T5 and/or T6, and other sources, mostly other texts ascribed to Zhi Qian: Comparison of the terms for the heavens in the three realms (kāma-, rūpa-, and ārūpyadhātu) 三界諸天 used today, and those found in T5, T6, and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 大明度[經] T225, ascribed to Zhi Qian, e.g., 兜率天/兜術天, 梵衆天, etc. (listed 555-557): [The commonality of terms used in all three texts is obvious for Sakaino, but] he holds that, the terms in T5 are slightly closer to those in T225 than those in T6. He comments that it must have been quite common for a translator to use different words to translate the same word, especially in the early periods when there were few fixed translation words to use (555-558). Comparison of the terms for the “eightfold celestial assembly” 八部衆 used today, and in T225, T6, and the 私訶昧經 (私呵昧經, T532, also ascribed to Zhi Qian) (listed p. 560): Sakaino asserts that the term 質諒神, which is used in T225, T6, and T532, is never used by any translators other than Zhi Qian (560). [NOTE: electronic searching shows that Sakaino was not quite right in this surmise, because 質諒神 also appears in T152, T228 and T769 --- MR.] Comparison of the terms for the twelvefold categorisation of canonical texts 十二文教 used today, and those in the 七知經 T27, ascribed to Zhi Qian and T6, such as 長行/文, 重頌/歌, etc (listed p. 561): Those used in T6 and in T27 match very well, which Sakaino claims to be another piece of evidence showing that T6 was translated by Zhi Qian (560-562). Sakaino maintains that the reason that Zhi Qian translated MPNS twice is that he obtained a new original text after translating T5, and revised it according to that new original. Sakaino presents quotations from T5 and T6 to illustrate this point. Especially for the verse he quotes, Sakaino asserts that nobody would disagree that the verse in T6 is the revision of the corresponding verse in T5 (562-565). 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 |
Sakaino quotes a passage from KYL that states that the two-juan *Nirvāṇa-sūtra 泥洹經 [般泥洹經 T6?, anon. E. Jin], newly rediscovered in Zhisheng´s time, should be the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra 泥洹經 in one juan ascribed to Guṇabhadra, but it does not appear to be Guṇabhadra’s work, so that Zhisheng therefore classifies it as anonymous. Sakaino maintains that this two-juan version is actually Zhi Qian’s translation, and pointing out the fact that Dao’an ascribes the 泥洹經 [T6?] to Zhi Qian while there is no anonymous 泥洹經 listed in Dao’an or Sengyou. Sakaino also suggests in passing that the one-juan 泥洹經 ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ should be a result of a confusion with a work by *Lokakṣema. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 226 |
The Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經 (Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra) T6 is incorrectly given the title Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等泥洹經 in the three editions 三本, due to confusion with the Fangdeng bannihuan jing 方等般泥洹經 T376. The title in the Korean edition, Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經, is correct. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fukushima 2004] Fukushima Kennō 福島謙應. "Yakugo kara mita Butsu hatsunaion kyō to Hatsunaion kyō no yakukyōsha 訳語からみた「佛般泥洹経」と 「般泥洹経」の訳経者." Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo shohō 東洋文化研究所所報 8 (2004): 1-26. |
Fukushima attempts to determine the translatorship of the Fo bannihuan jing 佛般泥洹經 T5 and the Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經 T6 on the basis of internal stylistic evidence. Possible candidates for the translatorship of these texts are Zhi Qian 支謙, Bo Fazu 白法祖, and Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. Fukushima notes that T5 and T6 share similar style and terminology, and 16-18% of both texts are the same. In T5 and T6, proper names are translated 意訳 rather than transliterated approx. 60% of the time, which forms a contrast with the parallel in DĀ T1(2) 遊行經, where the ratio is less than 10 %: e.g. 鷂山 for Gṛdhrakūṭa in T5 and T6, but 耆闍崛山 in T1. Fukushima proposes a chronology of words for "village": 聚 > 邑 > 村 (old > new), and notes that T5 mostly uses 聚, while T6 uses 邑 twice as frequently as 聚. T1 and T6 always employ 轉輪聖王 for *cakravartirāja. T5 always uses 飛行皇帝 [which is rare --- MR]. Fukushima holds that pace Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿, the quartet of terms 溝港, 頻來, 不還, 應真 (for the four types of arhat, viz. śrotaāpanna, sākṛdāgain, anāgamin, arhat) are not unique to Zhi Qian, but are attested among other authors in the Taishō [NOTE: Fukushima must be accepting other dubious ascriptions; computer searching shows in fact that the combination of all four of these terms in a single text is extremely rare outside Zhi Qian, with the striking exception of T152 --- MR]. On the basis of a statistical analysis of 50 ordinary terms 一般的用語 in T5 and T6, Fukushima concludes that it is far less probable that T5 and T6 were translated by Bo Fazu. Fukushima thus concludes that T5 was translated earlier than T6; that both T5 and T6 were translated by Zhi Qian; and that Zhi Qian might have used T5 as reference material when he was translating T6. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 14 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經 T6 should be translated by Zhi Qian. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院 (2020): 65–68. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|