| Identifier | T0360 [T] |
| Title | 佛說無量壽經 [T] |
| Date | 421 [Harrison et al. 2002] |
| Unspecified | Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 [Sakaino 1935] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Baoyun, 寶雲; Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 [Yoshikawa & Funayama 2009] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | Baoyun, 寶雲 [Sakaino 1935] |
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 |
[Kawano 2006] Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. Shoki kan'yaku butten no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo o chūshin to shite 初期漢訳仏典の研究 : 竺法護を中心として. Ise: Kōgakkan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2006. — Table 6, p. 87 |
|
On the basis of a complex examination of the evidence in the catalogues from CSZJJ to KYL (73-92), Kawano arrives at this corpus of 41 texts, which he thinks can most safely be ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and dated, in order to construct a basis for examining Dharmarakṣa's corpus for the development of translation idiom over the course of his career. This note lists that corpus. Kawano arrives at this corpus on the basis of the following criteria: (1) He accepts texts which were probably dated in the original CSZJJ, as represented by the Koryŏ (Kawano shows that the version of CSZJJ received via the Song[-Yuan-Ming] line of transmission includes a large set of problematic additional dates); (2) He accepts texts first dated in Fajing, as long as the date was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL; (3) He rejects texts for which a translation date first appears in LDSBJ; (4) He adds one further text (T810) that can be dated on the basis of a (very early manuscript) colophon. [Note: This list includes four (or five?) lost texts, and a couple of texts ascribed to other translators in the received canon. The number of lost texts is uncertain, because the list includes a 無量壽經, which some modern scholars would be inclined to identify with T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
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. — 158-159. |
"Not a single text can reliably be credited to Kang Sengkai. While there well may have been such a monk living in north China during the Wei period, his name simply became a peg on which to hang the attribution of texts which are obviously of much later vintage." None of his texts are ascribed to him by Sengyou or Daoan, and Fajing only ascribes T310(19) to him out of the three texts that eventually came to bear his name. Internal evidence shows much later style, e.g. 如是我聞. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Yoshikawa & Funayama 2009] Yoshikawa Tadao 吉川忠夫 and Funayama Tōru 船山徹, trans. Kō sō den (ichi) 高僧伝(一). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 2009. — 273 n. 4 |
CSZJJ says in two places that Baoyun produced a version of this text. Yoshikawa and Funayama simply say that although the extant T360 is ascribed in T to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧, the theory that regards it as actually representing the Buddhabhadra and Baoyun translation is more persuasive. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Harrison et al. 2002] Harrison, Paul, Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Kazunobu Matsuda, "Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra", in Jens Braarvig, ed., Buddhist Manuscripts, Volume II: Manuscripts in the Scho̸yen Collection III (Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2002), 179-214. — 180 |
The revised ascription to Buddhabhadra is supported by Harrison, Hartmann and Matsuda, who date the text to 421. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Gotō 2006] Gotō Gijō 後藤義乗. "Jiku Hōgo no yakugo to Hōun, Buddabadora no yakugo 竺法護の訳語と宝雲・ブッダバドラの訳語." Shūkyō kenkyū 宗教研究 79, no. 7 (2006): 244-245[R]. |
Gotō's article is very brief, but methodologically quite interesting. He begins by noting that prior scholars have propounded two main theories about the translatorship of T360, ascribing it either to Dharmarakṣa or Buddhabhadra-Baoyun. His article very briefly summarises a study in which he first took samples in blocks of 160 characters each from a range of texts reliably ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, in order to determine whether or not some sort of stylometric test could consistently distinguish between their authorial signatures. He reports that this test (the nature of which he does not describe) was able to correctly identify Dharmarakṣa texts 94.3% of the time, and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun texts 89.8% of the time. He then applied the same test to T360, and found that only 39 samples, out of a total of 120, were judged by the stylometric measure to be by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun. This ratio, he asserts, cannot be explained by the accuracy rating of the test method itself, and in incompatible with either translation solely by Dharmarakṣa or solely by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun. Gotō therefore hypothesises that our present T360 is a revision by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun of an earlier translation by Dharmarakṣa. To further test this hypothesis, he isolated two sets of markers, used respectively either only by Dharmarakṣa, and never by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, or vice versa: Dharmarakṣa: 宣布, 班宣, 演法, 權方便, 積累, 通慧, 聖旨, 佛樹, 從順, 所當+[verb], 聖明, 諸德本, 無極 etc. Terms from both sets are found in T360, further supporting his hypothesis. A final section describes computer methods by which Gotō arrived at the identification of these markers. I [MR] do not fully understand the description of these methods, but he began by using a computer to compare portions of the (eventual) *Buddhāvataṃsaka translated by Dharmarakṣa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun respectively, and identify bigrams with a frequency of zero on one side. He then ran grep searches through a directory of texts ascribed to the two different translators (teams) to find examples of those terms in context. Gotō also mentions in passing that the ascription to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun is also accepted by Kagawa Takao 香川孝雄 in his 無量寿経の諸本対照研究. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fujita 1967] Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. "Muryōju kyō no yakusha wa dare ka 無量寿経の訳者は誰か." IBK 15, no. 2 (1967): 22-31. |
Fujita argues for Buddhabhadra and Baoyun as translators of the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha T360. His main target in doing so is the argument of Nogami (1950) that this ascription is rendered impossible by the Dunhuang manuscript of the text held at Ōtani University, which bears a date of Shenrui 神瑞 2 = 415. A second possible problem for the ascription to BhBh-BY is the claim advanced by some scholars that works of Zhi Dun 支遁 and Xi Chao 郄超 show traces of wording due to T360. These arguments have led some scholars to prefer an attribution to Dharmarakṣa. Fujita argues that the dated colophon to the Dunhuang manuscript is suspicious, on several grounds: paleographers are not certain that the hand is the same as that of the text itself; the layout of the page (23 lines of 17 characters each) is atypical for such an early date, and otherwise earliest attested in the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya manuscript of 479; there exists a similar manuscript of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka, for which the colophon is dated 413, which would also be anachronistic (the text was translated 418-420), which leads to the conclusion that the colophon, in that case, is fake; and first-hand examination of physical details of the T360 Ōtani manuscript show other inconsistencies. On various paleographic grounds, he suggests that the body of the manuscript is more likely to date from the late fifth or early sixth century. He then appeals to Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms in "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumārajīva) style, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 (T2145:55.5a13 ff.), to argue that the style of T360 is also atypical of Dharmarakṣa’s period and work; and he suggests that it matches the style of Baoyun's Buddhacarita 佛本行經 T193 and Buddhabhadra's *Buddhāvataṃsaka 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278. In an aside, he argues that the "five evils" section was added in China, and contains traces of Confucian and Daoist ideology and phrasing (he promises to follow up on this point in other work); and he notes that similar material is also found in the 四天王經 T590 (he does not go into detail). Finally, he briefly refutes the idea that Zhi Dun and Xi Chao show phrasing indebted to T360, and in fact, we also do not see any traces in the generation of Kumārajīva and Huiyuan; the first place we do see clear evidence of such wording is in Xie Lingyun 謝靈運. This would then mean that the text appeared sometime between the death of Huiyuan in 417 and Xie's execution in 433, which fits perfectly with the date reported for the Buddhabhadra and Baoyun's translation. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nogami 1950] Nogami Shunjō 野上俊静. "Muryōju kyō Kan’yaku kō 無量寿経漢訳攷." Nihon Bukkyōgaku nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 15 (1950): 180-194. |
Nogami argues that the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 T360 was more probably translated by Dharmarakṣa. In so doing, he argues against what he characterises as a standard view, by his time, that it was translated by Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, which was the view of scholars such as Sakaino, Tokiwa, Mochizuki and Tsukamoto (though he also notes that it was not an absolute consensus, and mentions such dissenters as Izumi Hōkei 泉芳璟). He characterises the attribution to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun as based primarily upon mention in the text of a *buddhāvataṃsakasamādhi (得佛華嚴三昧。宣揚演說一切經典 etc., T360:12.266b13), which is thought to support some connection with the Buddhabhadra (earliest) translation of the *Buddhāvataṃasaka 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278; and the resemblance of translation terminology to other texts by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, especially the Buddacarita 佛本行經 T193. The primary grounds upon which Nogami advocates consideration of reattribution to Dharmarakṣa is the discovery of a Dunhuang manuscript copy of T360, held by Ōtani University, with a colophon giving a date of Shenrui 神瑞 2 = 415 CE. This date is incompatible with the date of 421 given in CSZJJ for the Buddhabhadra-Baoyun translation. Nogami is absolutely certain that the colophon is written in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript, and therefore places total confidence in the date. He therefore regards the evidence of the colophon as necessarily overturning the attribution to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, regardless of whom we then put in their place. In considering the alternative ascriptions this leaves open, he first rejects the ascription (as in the Taishō) to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧. He notes that this ascription is first found in the notoriously unreliable LDSBJ, and that it found its way into the modern canon via Zhisheng, who took up the ascription in KYL. However, Fajing and Yancong, in the same period as Fei Changfang, ascribed the extant text to Dharmarakṣa; the style of the text is not archaic enough for Kang Sengkai; and some scholars have even questioned the very existence of Kang Sengkai, wondering whether the name might stem from some confusion with the name of the much better-known Kang Seng*hui* 康僧會, active in the same period. Nogami is careful not to characterise his arguments in support of Dharmarakṣa as "proof", and aims only to show that there are grounds enough to investigate the possibility of this ascription further. He notes again that this ascription is supported by Fajing and Yancong, and that CSZJJ also includes information that indicates that Dharmarakṣa at least translated *a* Sukhāvatīvyūha [whether or not it was the extant T360]. He adduces arguments by Izumi Hōkei that the terminology of T360 resembles that of other Dharmarakṣa texts such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka 正法華經 T263 and the 佛昇忉利天為母說法經 T815. However, he then mounts something of a broadside against the use of terminological and stylistic evidence altogether, noting that Mochizuki concluded that the phraseology of T360 precisely did *not* resemble that of T263, and used such evidence to argue *against* the ascription of T360 to Dharmarakṣa. He argues, more generally, that use of such evidence to assess ascriptions to Dharmarakṣa is likely to be problematic, given that Dharmarakṣa was active for four decades, moved and worked over such a wide geographic area, and was assisted by quite a large number of collaborators (e.g. as amanuenses 筆受). [MR---Nogami certainly has a good point when he argues that for these reasons, we cannot use any *single* text, however famous it might be, such as T263, as the benchmark of Dharmarakṣa's style.] For this reason, he says he prefers to use the colophon date of 415, which he regards as rock-solid, as a starting point. He argues that in such turbulent times as the fourth-fifth centuries, texts would have taken a long time to circulate, and the gap of 107 years between the date recorded for of Dharmarakṣa's translation of the Sukhāvatīvyūha and the Ōtani manuscript date of Shenrui 2 = 415 fits such a picture. He then argues that passages in Zhi Dun 支遁 and Xi Chao 郄超 show possible influence from the content and wording of T360. In the case of Xi Chao, the phrases Nogami adduces are: 愍傷眾生 [which, however, only appears once in T360, and is found in other works by Dharmarakṣa, T152, etc.---MR]; 蠕動之類 [twice in T360, but common in a range of early texts]; 端心正意 [in fact, very rare, and never found in any other Dharmarakṣa text; concentrated in the works of Zhu Fonian, his associates and contemporaries, except for two instances in "Bo Fazu" T5 and "Faju" T33]; and 兩舌惡口妄言綺語 [once in T360; rare but attested in other Dharmarakṣa works]. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fujita 1981] Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. "Muryōju kyō no yakusha mondai hosetsu 『無量寿経』の訳者問題補説." In Daijō Bukkyō kara mikkyō e: Katsumata Shinkyō hakase kokikinenronshū 大乗仏教から密教へ：勝又俊教博士古稀記念論集, edited by the Katsumata Shinkyō hakase kokikinenronshū kankōkai 勝又俊教博士古稀記念論文集刊行会, 691-700[R]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1981. |
Fujita argues against Gotō (1978), who proposed on the basis of computational philology and translation terms and style that T360 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. Fujita reaffirms the attribution to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun. According to Fujita, Gotō's study was based upon three main sets of evidence, which he refutes respectively as follows. 1. Gotō calculated the relative frequency of 42 common characters in a sample of 26 works by 13 early translators, and upon that basis, determined that the stylistic signature of T360 is closest to Dharmarakṣa. Fujita objects that in his short study, Gotō does not explain how these 42 characters were selected; that they make no allowance for transcription terms; and that we have no reason to be sure that this test can accurately identify translators. He also notes that Gotō uses, as his benchmark for Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, only "Faxian's" MPNMS T376 and the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya T1425. Fujita notes that a much larger number of texts is ascribed to both Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, and argues that these two texts are not sufficient to establish a translation style for them. He also notes that the "five evils" section of T360 should be excluded from such tests, because of the possibility that it is of a different provenance [may have been added in China, etc.]. 2. According to Fujita, Gotō takes it almost as a consensus view that the translation terms of T360 are very similar to those of Dharmarakṣa's Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186, though Fujita himself had argued in earlier work that there are in fact large differences in this respect between T360 and Dharmarakṣa's Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Fujita shows that the ten epithets of the Tathāgata vary significantly between T186 and a set of translation terms common to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's *Buddhāvataṃsaka, MPNMS, and Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. He also shows that in other texts in the Buddhabhadra-Baoyun corpus (出生無量門持經 T1012, the Śrīmālādevī T353, and the “Ocean Samādhi” T643 [but for T643, cf. Yamabe's arguments that the text might not be a straight translation---MR]) the ten epithets vary, and on the basis of this [single!] example, argues that it is dangerous to make arguments about attribution on the basis of translation terms. 3. Finally, according to Fujita, Gotō argued that a line in "Sengzhao's" 僧肇 commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 注維摩詰經 T1775 shows that Sengzhao must have been aware of the content of T360, and this makes the ascription of T360 to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun chronologically impossible. Against this, Fujita argues that in fact, T1775 collects the comments of four commentators, including Daosheng 道生, who died in 434, after Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's reported translation in 421. In addition, Fujita cites Usuda (1977) who has shown that T1775 contains a reference to the *Dharmakṣema version of MPNMS (T374, or perhaps T375, its "Southern" revision; however, the wording of this reference is loose, and according to the Taishō apparatus, this citation is missing from the Heian manuscript of the text with the siglum 甲). Fujita follows the traditional dating of *Dharmakṣema's activity, and therefore dates T374 as completed in 421 [but cf. Chen (2004)---MR]. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fujita 1990] Fujita, Kōtatsu. “The Textual Origins of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching: A Canonical Scripture of Pure Land Buddhism.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert Buswell, 149–173. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1990. — 157, 160 |
Fujita mentions in passing that he considers the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經T360 (traditionally ascribed to Kang Sengkai="*Saṃghavarman") to have been translated by Buddhabhadra and Baoyun from a “newly obtained manuscript from India”. He also notes that this as the translation of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra drawn upon in the composition of the Guan Wuliangshou jing 觀無量壽佛經 T365. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Nakamura 1987] Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987. — 206 |
The 無量壽經 T360 (Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) is “frequently considered” to have been translated by Saṅghavarman, but Nakamura suggests that it is likely to have been translated by Dharmarakṣa [竺法護---Nakamura has "Saṃgharakṣa" in error---MR]. He adds that there are “tremendous discrepancies” between the Chinese and the Sanskrit. Some scholars have argued that many passages were later additions by translators; for instance, some scholars have argued that “Five Evils” passage was added in China, but other scholars have argued that the same passage is an authentic Indian text. Nakamura cites: Unrai, p. 235. Discussed in detail by Jūshen Ikemoto in Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū, no. 350, Oct. 1955, p. 82 f; Ikemoto: IBK., vol. II, 1, p. 165 f.; Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū, no. 350, Oct. 1955, p. 82 ff.; cf. Unrai. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Gómez 1996] Gómez, Luis O., trans. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light: Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sutras. Honolulu: University of Hawaiˋi Press, 1996. — 126, 129 |
Gómez notes that "modern scholarship has now questioned that attribution. It now seems more likely that the so-called Saṃghavarman translation is at least a reworking by members of the translation workshop of the famous Indian translator Buddhabhadra (359-429 CE)." It is "in some places archaic, showing traces of several stages of revision", "lengthy and cumbersome", and characterised by "mythic and doctrinal complexity", suggesting that it is a product of a late stage of textual development. The "Five Evils" section spans §§160-205 in Gómez's numbering [=T360:12.275c17-277c25]. It is part of what Gómez identifies as a somewhat longer interpolation, §§138-205 (i.e. beginning at 274b18). "The passage on the 'Five Great Evils'...may be a Chinese statement regarding morals and the consequences of sin. It has very close correspondences in the texts of Zhi Qian and Zhi Loujiachen" (129). §§5-22 [= T360:12.265c23-266b26] also have no parallel in Skt, and is otherwise only found in Bodhiruci outside T360. "These passages are probably 'interpolations', but we have no way of knowing for certain today where and when they were added to the text" (129). In addition, "[T360] differs from its Sanskrit counterpart in a number of ways: the order of the narrative and the argument deviate, sometimes only on minor points, sometimes in major ways; differences in content occur throughout, and range from regrouping and rearrangement of important themes (in the content and structure of the verse portions, for instance), to significant omissions and additions. The parallels, however, are more and stronger than the divergences." 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. — 246 |
The 無量壽經連義述文賛贊 T1748 by Gyeongheung 憬興 ascribes the 無量壽經 T360 to Dharmarakṣa, but without any real basis. 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. — 243-246 |
Sakaino argues that that the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 T360 should be attributed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢 (whose name still appears in this form in the present Taishō as a co-translator with Faxian 法顯 of T1427), against the received ascription to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧, on grounds of external and internal evidence. His main arguments are as follows. In all, twelve putative translations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha are reported, of which five are extant, and seven lost (Sakaino adds that those allegedly lost seven translations were included just in LDSBJ and other unreliable catalogues, and in fact never existed). Of these, two of the extant versions are relatively new, and their ascriptions are not problematic. Ascriptions of all of the other three extant scriptures should be corrected: the 平等覺經 T361 ascribed to *Lokakṣema should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokakṣema; and the 無量壽經 T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 should be re-ascribed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢. The vocabulary of the T360 is very new and could not belong to the Wei-Wu 魏呉periods. Sakaino maintains that the text should be the one referred to as the “New Sukhāvatīvyūha” 新無量壽經, ascribed to Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅/覺賢, which has been considered lost. Especially, the use of the term huayan sanmei 華嚴三昧 at the beginning of the text clearly suggests its relation to the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華嚴經 T278 ascribed to Buddhabhadra. There is another “New Sukhāvatīvyūha” 新無量壽經 ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲 listed in CSZJJ, but Sakaino claims that it is the same text as that ascribed to Buddhabhadra, since the two are recorded as translated in the same place in the same year. Baoyun probably worked as the “interpreter/oral translator” 傳語. 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. — 241, 243-247 |
On Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (which Sakaino reconstructs *Saṁghavarman), Sakaino makes the following claims: GSZ states that four texts are to be ascribed to Kang Sengkai. It is unknown which four texts this refers to. KYL lists three titles (an Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經, cf. T310(19), a Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經, cf. T360, and a Karma in four recitations 四分雜羯磨, cf. T1432), and LDSBJ lists two. However, Sakaino claims that those ascriptions are unreliable. 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. — 272 |
Gyeongheung 憬興, in his 無量壽經述文讃, reascribes the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 (ascribed in the present canon to *Lokakṣema) to Bo Yan, but Sakaino judges that this ascription is baseless. 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. — 540-541 |
Sakaino maintains that the extant “New” Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 新無量壽經 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (無量壽經 T360) should be re-ascribed to Buddhabhadra. In addition, the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲 in catalogues such as CSZJJ did not exist, and those records also refer to this same text. The mistake reflected in those records stemmed from the fact that Baoyun acted as the oral interpreter 傳語, while the “text was handled” 執本 by Buddhabhadra. 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. — 172-173 |
Ōno agrees with Mochizuki’s view that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 T360 is the work of Baoyun 寶雲 (presented in Jōdokyō no kigen oyobi hattatsu 浄土教の起源及發達, Part 1, Chapter 6). T360 is ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 in the Taishō 現藏, but this ascription is incorrect. The ascription first appears in KYL [Note: Naitō 1970 traces the ascription back to Fajing --- MR]. Ōno claims that T360 should be reascribed to Baoyun, following CSZJJ, since a) [reports of] the Jin catalogue and Baochang catalogue [in LDSBJ] are not reliable; b) KYL does not offer any reason for the ascription; and c) most of the vocabulary of T360 belongs to the (Liu) Song period. Still, T360 might have some relation with the version of the text ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, because it includes phrases and terms such as 我聞如是 [sic] (according to Ōno, not used in the Song period), and 世自在王佛 and 世饒王佛 [sic]. CSZJJ records that Baoayun’s version of the text was translated in Yongchu 永初 2 (421 CE) at Daochang si in Yangzhou 楊州道場寺 (Sengyou reports that one catalogue stated that it was at Liuheshan si 六合山寺). It is also recorded that Buddhabhadra 佛駄跋陀 translated a “new Wuliangshou sūtra” 新無量壽經 at the same place in the same year, which should indicate that he cooperated in the translation of T360, as Baoyun was his disciple. 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. — 183-184 |
It is not known where Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (*Saṃghavarman) was from. Kamata suggests that he might be from Sodgiana 康居国 as his name contains the ethnonym Kang 康. It is recorded that Kang Sengkai translated four texts including the Ugra-paripṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 T310(19). LDSBJ ascribes two scriptures to Kang Sengkai, the Ugra-paripṛcchā and the Wuliangshou (*Amitābha) jing 無量壽經 (*Sukhāvatīvyūha) T360. KYL records three titles ascribed to Kang Sengkai, Ugra-paripṛcchā, Wuliangshou jing, and the Si fen za jiemo 四分雜羯磨 T1432, all of which were extant in Zhisheng’s time (183). All three texts still carry the ascription to Kang Sengkai in T. Kamata maintains that all these ascriptions must be incorrect, on the following grounds (183-184): According to Kamata, there are three competing ascriptions for T360: a) Kang Sengkai, b) Dharmarakṣa , and c) Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 and Baoyun 寶雲. None of them has been proven correct to date. The ascription to Kang Sengkai was first given by LDSBJ, and accepted by succeeding catalogues. LDSBJ’s view is supposedly based on the Jin catalogue 晋世雜錄 by Zhu Daozu 竺道祖and the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄. The former catalogue was lost by the time of Fei, as Fei himself records. Kamata speculates that Fei probably learned about the record in those catalogues via some other catalogue(s). As CSZJJ does not record any scripture ascribed to Kang Sengkai, most modern scholars do not accept the ascription of T360 to Kang Sengkai. Kamata cites work by Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 (『佛教經典成立史論』, 法蔵館, 1946, 220;『中国浄土教理史』, 法蔵館, 1964, 40); Ōno Genmyō 小野玄妙 (『佛教經典総論』, 『佛書解説大辞典』別巻, 32-34); and Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達 (『原始浄土思想の研究』, 岩波書店, 1970, 62-64 ). The ascription of T310(19) to Kang Sengkai was rejected in KYL. Most modern scholars also reject this ascription. Kamata cites Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (『初期大乗佛教の研究』, 春秋社, 1968, 488-489). Kamata asserts that the ascription of T1432 (曇無德律部雜羯磨) to Kang Sengkai is also incorrect. Kamata states that some scholars have indeed doubted the very existence of Kang Sengkai, and suspect that his name actually refers to Kang Senghui 康僧會 of the Wei 呉 (Kamata cites Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, 『支那佛教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 241-242). Kamata himself holds that it may be a little far-fetched to deny the existence of Kang Sengkai altogether, since GSZ reports his life, but agrees that the ascriptions to him should be rejected (184). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Hō Kyō roku ni tsuite 法經錄について." IBK 19, no. 1 (1970): 235-238. |
|
Naitō gives some general information about Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. It was composed in the space of two months in 594 by a commission of 22 scholars. Hayashiya argued that the catalogue was composed in preparation for the copying of the full canon. Naitō argues that there must have been some circumstances precipitating the rush. He notes that suspicious texts were also recorded and categorised as such, which would be odd if the sole purpose of the catalogue was to list works to be included in an approved version of the canon. He therefore proposes that the catalogue, and the canon connected to it, were prepared as a response to the notorious incident in Guangzhou in 593 surrounding the use of the Zhancha jing 占察經, in which practices of self-flagellation, "stupa repentance" rites, and the "mixing of the sixes" were connected with the use of a scripture that a commission of experts then declared spurious. Among the reasons they gave that the text was inauthentic was that the text was recorded in no earlier catalogues, which Naitō treats as circumstantial evidence that there was a mentality current that could see the compilation of a new catalogue as associated with a similar agenda to determine which texts were authoritative and, by implication, which were spurious, in order to forestall recurrence of like incidents. Naitō also treats the problem of the sources of Fajing's work. Determination of his sources is made difficult by the fact that the catalogue does not explicitly give its sources. Fei Zhangfang/Changfang says that Fajing had seventeen catalogues at his disposal, but then does not himself admit that so many catalogues were extant in their time. Naitō reports very briefly that he has compared the treatment of extant translations in Fajing with treatment in other sources, for a total of 79 translators and 556 works, but here gives no details, rather, promising to report his findings in another venue. He notes that a total of 428 texts were ascribed to named translators in CSZJJ, but in Fajing, that number increases to 459 for translators down to the end of the Qi (i.e. before Sengyou's time). In other words, Fajing has added at least 31 new ascriptions. As a matter of fact, there are 34 more ascriptions on which Fajing does not agree with CSZJJ, for a total of 65 new ascriptions. Naitō is unable to determine Fajing's sources for these ascriptions, but he notes that in total, they entail, among other things, the addition of nine new "translators" to the record: Tanguo 曇果 [cf. T196], Tankejialuo 曇柯迦羅 [to whom no extant texts are ascribed today], Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 [cf. T360, T1432, X11], Fajian 法堅 [cf. T495], Zhi Fadu 支法度 [cf. T17, T527], An Faqin 安法欽 [cf. T816, T2042], Fahai 法海 [cf. T1490], Xian gong 先公 [cf. T640, T641], and Xiang gong 翔公 [cf. T234]. Naitō argues that probably five catalogues were in fact extant at Fajing's (and Fei's) time, in addition to GSZ: CSZJJ, Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue, Li Kuo's 李廓 catalogue, Fashang's 法上 catalogue, and the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄. Prior scholarship had understood that Baochang collected information from a range of older catalogues, and that Baochang was in turn the proximate source for the use of information from these older catalogues in Fei's LDSBJ (Naitō refers to Tokiwa for this view). Naitō doubts this, because he believes that Baochang only reported 226 ascriptions for sutras, and this number probably did not exceed 300 even when śāstras and vinaya works are taken into account; but this total is too few to account for the profusion of new information reported under the Sui. He notes further that comparison to CSZJJ, the only case in which we can check Fei's information against his source, shows that when LDSBJ says "see such-and-such a catalogue", it only means that the title is listed in the source, not the ascription --- CSZJJ is cited in this manner for texts that CSZJJ itself clearly treats as anonymous. Naitō also discusses Fajing's probable use of Fashang's catalogue. He notes that Fashang stopped at about 568-570, and that Fajing does the same. He takes this fact to indicate that Fajing just took Fashang's information over holus-bolus, and suggests that ascriptions to Fajian, Fahai, and Xian gong were probably added on this basis. 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 |
[Kagawa 1984] Kagawa Takao 香川孝雄 . Muryōju kyō no shohon taishō kenkyū 無量寿経の 諸本対照研究. Nagata bunshōdō, 1984. — 24-30 |
Like most scholars, Kagawa rejects the received ascription of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra T360 to Kang Sengkai. Against a common view, Kagawa also argues that T360 cannot have been translated by Dharmarakṣa. He favours the theory that ascribes the text to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun. Kagawa argues, first, on the basis of an examination of records in the catalogues. He also argues on the basis of translation terminology, taking as his starting point Sengyou's list of "old" and "new" translations terms representing the same notions at T2145 (LV) 5a13-b9. In addition, Kagawa adduces a list of further terms, for which he finds a clear contrast between wording found in T360, and Dharmarakṣa's customary translation(s) for the same thing [I here list Kagawa's T360 terms and Dhr equivalents in that order]: 王舍城耆闍崛山 vs. 王舍城靈鷲山; [In the above list, items enclosed in square brackets and marked with an asterisk, on Kagawa's own showing, also occur in Dharmaraksa, and therefore cannot be taken as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmaraksa. For other items enclosed in square brackets, where the T360 term is marked with an exclamation mark, Kagawa's "T360" term in fact also occurs in Dharmarakṣa, and therefore also cannot be used as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmarakṣa. --- MR] Kagawa also discusses Nogami's study of manuscript evidence dated to 415 CE, and Fujita's arguments attempting to refute the early date of that manuscript. Finally, he also refers back to studies of translation style by Kitagawa Kenjō 北川賢浄 and Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 for additional evidence that supports an ascription to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun. 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. — 10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi De’an 釋德安 argues that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 T360 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. They refer to Shi De'an 釋德安 (Zhou Muxiu 周睦修). "Wuliangshou jing yizhe kao: yi Fojing yuyanxue wei yanjiu zhuzhou" 《無量壽經》譯者考——以佛經語言學為研究主軸. PhD diss., Nanhua University, 2005: 2-4. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
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. — 10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Karashima points out that the term 觀世音first appeared in the translations of the Western Jin dynasty, and argues that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 T360 could be translated in the first half of the fifth century. They refer to Karashima Seishi 辛島靜志. “Fahua jing de wenxianxue yanjiu –– Guanyin de yuyi jieshi” 《法華經》的文獻學研究——觀音的語義解釋. In Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢, edited by Zhonghua wenshi luncong bianji bu 中華文史論叢編輯部, 205, f.1. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2009. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Shi De'an 2005] Shi De’an 釋德安 (Zhou Muxiu 周睦修). “Wuliangshou jing yizhe kao: yi Fojing yuyanxue wei yanjiu zhuzhou”《無量壽經》譯者考——以佛經語言學為研究主軸. PhD diss., Nanhua University, 2005. |
Shi De'an argues that the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量壽經 T360 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. He argues on the basis of phraseology, including single words, idiomatic phrases, and formulae (e.g. 我聞如是, 對曰), and also from syntax. He proceeds principally by assessing the comparative likelihood of an ascription to Dharmarakṣa against an ascription to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun. Relying principally on Ono Genmyō's Bukkyō kyōten sōron 仏敎経典総論 and CSZJJ, he defines reference corpora of 70 texts for Dharmarakṣa, 5 texts for Buddhabhadra, and 1 text for Baoyun respectively. In the domain of syntax, Shi finds the following usages and sentence patterns distinctive of Dharmarakṣa against Baoyun (see also table, 146): 1) 乎: 寧…乎; 何…乎; …耶, 乎… In the domain of vocabulary, Shi finds the following items that he takes to be distinctive of Dharmarakṣa against Baoyun: 無為, 無極, 神明, 道德, 精神, 真人, 自然, 功祚, 國邑, 勞苦, 聖旨, 姿色, 壽終;無得, 消化; 尋, 得無, 三法忍, 底極, 焉; 諮嗟, 善本, 佛樹, 載, 度世, 絕去, 取滅度; 無量壽, 分衛; 言行相副, 唯垂聽察, 被弘誓鎧, 奮大光明, 清白之法, 極樂世界, 光光, 巍巍, 世世, 芬芬, 時時, 久久; 窈窈冥冥, 浩浩茫茫, 棄國捐王, 積累功德, 飲苦食毒. By contrast, he finds only the following items that are distinctive of Buddhabhadra (Boayun) against Dharmarakṣa: 游履, 觀世音, 那由他, 六種震動. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|