| Identifier | T0005 [T] |
| Title | 佛般泥洹經 [T] |
| Date | 200-300 [Nattier 2008] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Nattier 2008] |
| Translator 譯 | Bo Fazu 白法祖, Bo Yuan 帛遠 [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 |
[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 |
[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. — 245 |
According to Iwamatsu, in CSZJJ, Bo Fazu is ascribed with only one text, which is moreover said to have been lost; in LDSBJ, however, he is suddenly ascribed with 23 works. Iwamatsu believes that this means that we have no extant works that can reliably be ascribed to Bo Fazu. If this is true, it would undermine the received ascriptions of T5, T144, T330, T528 and T777. 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 Bai 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). [NOTE: Zhisheng's remark here reads: 般泥洹經一卷. 或無般字孝建元年於辛寺譯見道慧宋齊錄今尋此單卷泥洹上下文句非是跋陀所翻似是謙護等譯今尋得二卷且附東晉錄中, T2154 (LV) 530a3-5. It seems to me ambiguous whether he is declaring that his search turned up a "second fascicle", or an entire version "in two fascicles". --- MR] 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 |
|
|
|
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 n. 39, 127–128 |
Jan Nattier notes that arguments have been made for the attribution of T5 to Zhi Qian 支謙 (fl. 223–253) (by Iwamatsu, Park), but she argues against this attribution. She also describes complexities in the relations between T5 and T6, which are parallel texts, and "share a substantial amount of unusual vocabulary" and "to have been based on a similar (though not identical) Indian original". She writes, "The language of T6 is much more elegant in style than that of T5; thus it seems unlikely, from a literary perspective, that T5 could be a revision of T6. On the other hand, T5 contains a considerable amount of material that has no parallel in T6, which raises questions about whether T6 as we have it could really be a revision of T5 in its present form. A third possibility is that both T5 and T6 might both (sic) be descendants (i.e. revisions) of a common, but now lost, original. In any case, it is clear that the two texts are connected in some way." Pointing out similarities between T5 and T145, Nattier also argues that it is likely that both texts were produced in the Wu kingdom in the third century CE. She concludes that "the two texts are connected in some way," though the exact nature of that relationship is difficult to determine. 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. — 273-275 |
Sakaino states the following (273): CSZJJ lists only the Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經 (not extant) as the work of Bo Fazu 白法祖. LDSBJ ascribes 23 titles in 25 juan to him, which KYL reduced to 16 titles 18 juan by excising offshoot or byproduct scriptures 別生. The titles Dizi ben 弟子本 and Wu bu seng 五部僧 are mentioned in GSZ, but it is not known exactly which texts they referred to. Sakaino quotes a passage in LDSBJ, 高僧傳(止)云祖出一經。然其所出諸經遭世擾攘名録罕存。莫紀其實 [T2034 (XLIX) 66b18-b19], and criticizes this statement, pointing out that GSZ says three scriptures 三部經, not just one scripture 一經, and that the issue is rather the odd names given for two of those three scriptures. 1) 8 titles, all of which are also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (listed, 274). The number of juan often differs between the ascription to Bo Fazu and that to Dharmarakṣa, but Sakaino asserts that it is plain that Fei reused those titles of works of Dharmarakṣa as works of Bo Fazu as well. (This is therefore part of a wider pattern, which Sakaino also observes elsewhere for the corpora ascribed to other translators, where contiguous chunks of CSZJJ lists are re-used in LDSBJ as the basis for arbitrary new ascriptions to a single figure.) Especially, the word fanzhi 梵志 in the title Chixin fanzhi jing 持心梵志經 is clearly a copyist’s error for fantian 梵天 in the Chixin fantian jing 持心梵天經 (Chixin fantian suowen jing 持心梵天所問經), and such an error makes it even more plausible that those titles were just taken from somewhere and arbitrarily attributed to Bo Fazu. 2) 10 titles found elsewhere in CSZJJ (presented on p. 274). 8 titles out of the 10 are listed in Sengyou’s new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯經錄, the majority of which are related to tongzi/māṇava 童子 (童子經類). [Sakaino seems to overlook the 佛問四童子經 in this group, thus the above numbers should be “9 titles out of 11”, not “8 titles out of 10” -- AI ]. Fei apparently took them from the group of tongzi scriptures 童子經 and allocated them to Bo Fazu, creating the impression that Bo Fazu translated many scriptures related to tongzi. Sakaino also claims that it is not a coincidence that both the Dai’aidao [jing] 大愛道 (cf. T144) and the Shouda jing 首達經 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄. 3) 3 titles, viz., the Da fangdeng rulai jing 大方等如来經, the Wuliang po mo tuoluoni jing 無量破魔陀羅尼經, and the Tan chi tuoluoni jing 檀持陀羅尼經. The sources from which these ascriptions were taken are not known (275). Sakaino concludes: All of Fei’s new ascriptions of 22 titles to Bo Fazu in LDSBJ must be fabrications, or based on unreliable sources. It is still plausible that Bo Fazu was taught by Bo Yan 白延, because they were near contemporaries and Bo Yan was the only person named 白 who brought the Buddhism of Kutsi/Kuci(na)/Küsen 龜玆 to China (275). However, this implies that no ascriptions carried to Bo Fazu carried today in T are accurate. This entry is associated with all ascriptions to Bo Fazu in T. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 299 |
Kamata challenges some of the ascriptions given to Bo Yuan 帛遠 (aka Bo Fazu 白法祖) in the Taishō [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 T5; *Mahāprajāpatīparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大愛道般泥洹經 T144; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330; 菩薩逝經 Pusa shi jing T528; Xianzhe wu fude jing 賢者五福德經 T777; Kamata does not specify which are incorrect/correct --- IA]. Kamata states that [according to CSZJJ] Bo translated several texts, but no details about these works are unknown [Kamata is not clear here, but most likely referring to this CSZJJ passage: 常譯惟逮弟子本五部僧等三部經。又注首楞嚴經。又言。別譯數部小經值亂零失不知其名, T2145 (LV) 107c10-12 --- IA]. Dao’an does not list any works by him. Sengyou gives only a Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經. However, LDSBJ and other catalogues ascribe more than twenty titles to Bo, 帛遠, including the five ascribed to him in the Taishō. 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 |
[Nattier 2023] Nattier, Jan. "The 'Missing Majority': Dao'an's Anonymous Scriptures Revisted." In Chinese Buddhism and the Scholarship of Erik Zürcher, edited by Jonathan Silk and Stefano Zacchetti, 94-140. Leiden: Brill, 2023. — 95 n. 7, 115-116 w. nn. 73-75, |
Nattier argues that a small group of anonymous scriptures, comprising T5, T20, T46, T145, T392, T507, and T582, were probably composed in the South in the third century. Her argument is based upon the presence of some very rare vocabulary/terminology, which otherwise appears (in datable texts) in translations produced in this time and place (T225B, T152), and also on the absence of other, very common terms. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|