Articles by alphabetic order
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

On the Sources, Style and Authorship of Chapters of the Synoptic Suvarṇaprabhāsottama-sūtra T664 Ascribed to Paramārtha (Part 1)

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

On the Sources, Style and Authorship of Chapters of the Synoptic Suvarṇaprabhāsottama-sūtra T664 Ascribed to Paramārtha (Part 1)

Michael RADICH


In this study, I will identify hitherto unnoticed sources of the four chapters of the Sūtra of Golden Light ascribed to Paramārtha (see below for details of texts and translators). I will also show that the extant Chinese versions of these chapters were composed with extensive reference to the precise wording of pre-existing Chinese translations of many of the same sources. I will suggest that the most economical explanation for the overall pattern of relations between these chapters and their Chinese forerunners is that the chapters, or significant parts of them, were composed and added to the Golden Light in China. In support of this claim, I will attempt to show that a supposedly independent Tibetan translation of the Golden Light may in fact be a translation from Chinese, at least in certain chapters. In closing, I will consider some broader implications of my arguments for our understanding of the history of the Golden Light, of the Paramārtha corpus, of early Tibetan translation texts, and of Buddha-body doctrine.

Throughout this paper, unless I indicate otherwise, I use "Paramārtha" (often abbreviated “P”) (and the names of other translators) as a shorthand, referring to the complex, changeable and partly unknown groups and arrangements that produced our extant texts. Given the complexity of such compositional processes, we obviously cannot expect a

Chinese Buddhist translation text to have an authorial signature or "style" in the same way that, for example, the novels of Charles Dickens might evince such a style, and thereby be amenable to exactly the same kinds of stylometrical analyses. However, insofar as it can be shown empirically that a group of texts most firmly associated with a given translator's name and group do share certain regular and consistent features, it is still reasonable for us to seek to discriminate between works more or less typical of that "author", and thereby to evaluate problems of authorship and attribution.

Abbreviations for names of texts and translators are listed at the end of this paper. Due to limitations of space, this study has been divided into two parts. The present Part 1 discusses Chinese evidence; Part 2 will discuss Tibetan evidence and implications, and is due to appear in a subsequent number of ARIRIAB.

"TACL": A simple computer tool to facilitate terminological analysis of Chinese Buddhist texts Analysis of the language of the Golden Light and related texts for the purposes of this paper was greatly facilitated by the use of "TACL" ("Text Analysis for Corpus Linguistics"), a suite of computer tools currently being developed by Jamie Norrish in collaboration with the author.4 As applied to the analysis of Chinese Buddhist texts, TACL allows a conceptually simple comparison of the n-grams5 (strings of length n characters, where n is defined by the user), in two or more texts or corpora of any size, up to and including the entire canon, in either of two ways: 1. What n-grams are found only in A, and not in B (or vice versa)? 2. What n-grams are found in both A and B? The tool generates full lists of n-grams matching these criteria, which the researcher can then examine in context, in conjunction with digital searches via the CBETA CBReader.6 The work of this paper was thus also partly conceived as a testing ground for the usefulness of TACL in assessing questions of ascription and intertextual relations in the Chinese Buddhist canon.

Computer searches are, of course, nothing new in Buddhist Studies. However, a tool like TACL takes the process one step further, because it can instruct the computer to look for all terms or phrases satisfying certain criteria, rather than just particular individual items specified by the researcher. Experience with the tool so far suggests that precisely through the mechanical blindness of the

programme, this approach can draw our attention to stylistic markers of types that our preconceptions might otherwise lead us to overlook. For example, it can show that phrases are significant for a comparison, even where they might be so common in other contexts as to appear entirely innocuous. It can also draw our attention to features like distinctive, recurrent combinations of words, where the words so combined might be insignificant in isolation. It also promises, to some degree, to free us from “the tyranny of the noun”,7 that is, to help us notice more easily the possible stylistic significance of parts of speech other than the nouns (especially proper nouns, technical terms, and transcription terms) that have tended to dominate consideration of stylistic matters in Buddhology with Chinese sources.

Although TACL was thus used to find raw material for the analysis, however, it should be emphasised that the probative significance of all the evidence cited in this paper does not depend upon the operation of the tool, but rather, can be assessed (and has been assessed by the author) by the same methods and criteria used in research based upon ordinary digital searches for individually selected terms using CBETA, such as are now common in the field.

assumptions about named individuals (or even their ateliers). On the one hand, several such “translators” could be members of a single “rhetorical community”; while on the other, the corpus ascribed to a single “translator” (like P) might comprise several separable “rhetorical communities”. Neither need these two possibilities be mutually exclusive in a single case, since for various purposes, we might analyse a problem along a spectrum from coarse- to fine-grained. See Nattier (2008): 5, 162-163, and esp. 166-168.

4 The code repository for TACL may be found at: 5 The use of n-gram analysis for Chinese Buddhist texts has been pioneered by Ishii Kōsei. Ishii's methods differ somewhat from mine, but his groundbreaking work was an important source of inspiration. See Ishii (2003) (2012). I also gratefully acknowledge the benefit to my work of email discussions with Prof. Ishii, and his generosity in sharing with me some of his unpublished data. I must also here acknowledge the stimulus and help that my work received from a round of collaboration on these methods, in application to the P corpus, with Prof. Tu Aming 杜正民 and Lee Chia-ming 李家名 of Dharma Drum Buddhist College in 2008, and further discussions in 2010. The analysis of P’s corpus on stylistic and terminological criteria has also been significantly advanced by Keng (2009).

6 CBETA (2011). 7 I owe this witty formulation of this point to Jan Nattier (personal communication). Materials The Suvarṇa(pra)bhāsottama-sūtrendrarāja (hereafter "Suv") is extant in three canonical Chinese translations:

1. Jin guangming jing 金光明經 T663 by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 (385-433) ("DhKṣ").

2. A synoptic version, the Hebu jin guangming jing 合部金光明經 T664, compiled in 597 by Baogui 寶貴 (d.u.) ("B"), including DhKṣ and additional sections ascribed to Paramārtha (see below) and Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 (523-600; "JñG").

3. Jin guangming zuisheng wang jing 金光明最勝王經 T665, by Yijing 義淨 (635- 713) ("YJ").

In addition, a fourth, extracanonical version of the text has survived in manuscript form in Japan:

4. Manuscript dated 768 (Jingo-keiun 神護景雲 2), which is preserved in the Shōgozō 聖語蔵 ("S"), ascribed to Paramārtha 真諦 (499-569; hereafter "P").

This text originally comprised seven fascicles, of which five survive in S. The bibliographic tradition states that P's seven-fascicle Suv comprised DhKṣ's T663, to which four chapters, supposedly missing from DhKṣ, were newly added, and an expansion appended to the "Lifespan" chapter. With Zhisheng 智昇 (669-740), writing in 730, P's seven-fascicle version was excised from the canon, and subsequently lost in China. P's four original chapters, however, are supposed to have survived as incorporated into B (T664).

Setting aside for the moment the "Lifespan" chapter (we will return to it below), B thus includes four chapters ascribed to P:

"P-Suv-trikāya": Chapter 3, "On Distinctions among the Three Bodies" ("Sanshen fenbie pin" 三身分別品); "P-Suv-yezhang": Chapter 5, "On the Extinction of Karmic Obstructions" ("Yezhang mie pin" 業障滅品); "P-Suv-dhāraṇī": Chapter 6, "On the Utterly Pure Bhūmis of the Dhāraṇīs" ("Tuoluoni zuijing di pin" 陀羅尼最淨地品); "P-Suv-yikong": Chapter 9, "On Fulfilling Vows on the Basis of Emptiness" ("Yikong manyuan pin" 依空滿願品).

I will refer generally to the portions of Suv thus ascribed to P as translator, which constitute the central focus of this paper, as "P-Suv".

CHINESE EVIDENCE In this first section of the paper, I will examine evidence on the Chinese side for the date, sources and ascription of P-Suv.

External evidence for the date and ascription of P-Suv

On the basis of external evidence alone, the ascription of these chapters to P would appear to be among the most secure ascriptions in all of P's extant corpus. Not only is the ascription seemingly supported by Baogui's synoptic version of 597; the claim that P authored a translation of Suv is also found from the first catalogues after his era – those of Fajing 法經 (d.u., catalogue of 594), Fei Changfang 費長房 (d.u., catalogue of 597), and Yancong 彥琮 (557-610, catalogue of 602), and this is so even though, in other cases, these bibliographers sometimes represent two alternate traditions, which were only reconciled

and unified (often artificially, and at cost) by their successors. In addition, interlinear notes in Fei Changfang and the biography of P in the Xu gao seng zhuan 續高僧傳 give highly specific details about the place of translation, the circumstances of patronage under which it was produced, and persons who participated in the translation process. Moreover, two prefaces to the work have been preserved: one by Sengyin 僧隱 (d.u.), preserved in the Shōgozō manuscript; and another ascribed to Yancong. These prefaces, especially that of Sengyin, give considerable further detail; and the preface of Sengyin, moreover, is cited by Yancong, which shows that it, too, should predate 597. Sengyin, moreover, is supposed himself to have been present when the text was translated (according to him, in 553).

Bibliographers from Fei Changfang onwards also report that P authored a commentary on Suv. Such "commentaries" seem often to have been produced alongside translations, and these reports might therefore also be taken as additional evidence for the veracity of the tradition that P translated a version of Suv.15 Indeed, fragments of this/a commentary have survived, and they provide quite firm evidence that P indeed knew of and commented upon all four chapters included in P-Suv. The Trikāya chapter is mentioned in a comment of P's reported by Huizhao 慧沼 (648-714). Wŏnch'uk 圓測 (613-696) also reports a comment of P's on the exposition of the three bodies in the text. Quotes in later works by Huizhao, Wŏnch'uk, Fazang 法藏 (643-712), Daosui 道邃 (d.u., fl. 8 c.), Hyōbi 平備 (fl. 8-9c), and Gangyō 願曉 also preserve P's comments on specific loci and doctrines in all four chapters of P-Suv (and some other chapters of Suv).

We also find quite extensive evidence that all chapters except P-Suv-yikong must have been in circulation by the Suidynasty (581-618) (the relevance of this scruple will become clear below, when we examine evidence that aspects of P-Suv are likely to be later than P). The remaining three chapters are already discussed and quoted, sometimes quite extensively, in the works of Huijun (慧均, d.u., fl. 574-580s?19), Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523-592), Jizang 吉藏 (549-623) and Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597).20 P-Suv-trikāya is particularly well attested in these early witnesses.21

Thus, the external evidence that P translated portions of Suv is nearly as strong as such evidence gets for any text in his corpus.

Sources of P-Suv Despite the strength of this external evidence, however, there also exists very extensive internal evidence suggesting, rather, that these chapters, or (in some cases) considerable portions of them, were composed on the basis of prior Chinese texts. In what follows, I will discuss the sources of each chapter in turn. Rather than treating the chapters in the order in which they occur in Suv (in B), I discuss them in an order that seems to me best to facilitate presentation of the complex patterns in the evidence.

Sources of P-Suv-yezhang

Almost the entirety of P-Suv-yezhang matches almost the entirety of the *Karmāvaraṇapratiprasrabdhi-sūtra ("KAP"),22 translated by *Saṃghabhadra 僧伽婆羅 ("SBh", 460-524, active ca. 506-520/524),23 i.e. the Pusa zang jing 菩薩藏經 T1491.24 Matches are close in both wording and sense. The entire sequence of the two texts is also largely the same. This level of matching cannot be the result of two independent translations of the same source text, but must mean that the authors of P-Suv-yezhang consulted T1491 closely (or, in principle, vice versa, though this possibility would seem to be ruled out by dates).

A second translation of the same text, the Dasheng san ju chanhui jing 大乘三聚懺悔經 T1493, was made under the Sui by JñG. In places, moreover, the wording of P-Suvyezhang in fact matches JñG more closely than it does SBh. This shows either that JñG,

20 For my reasons for regarding Zhiyi's texts as possibly later evidence than Jizang, despite his earlier dates, see Radich (2008): 120 n. 322, 121 n. 327. 21 Huijun, Dasheng si lun xuan yi 大乘四論玄義: X784:46.651b7-8 cf. P-Suv-trikāya 364a2-3; 611a20-21 cf. again P-Suv-trikāya 364a2-3; 585c12-13 cf. P-Suv-trikāya 363a26-b4, c13; 602c16-17 cf. opening of P- Suv-dhāraṇī 372c7-29; 628c14-15 cf. P-Suv-trikāya 363a6-7, 363c3-5;

Jizang: Fa hua tong lüe 法華統略 X582:27.518b14-519a13 features a rather detailed préçis of much of the content of P-Suv-trikāya; Dasheng xuan lun 大乘玄論 T1853:45.37a25-27 cf. P-Suv-trikāya 364a2-3; Zhiyi: Jin guangming jing xuan yi 金光明經玄義 T1783:39.11a14-16, also X356:20.74c15-16, cf. P-Suvtrikāya 363c3-5, 363a4-11 (Zhiyi also seems to cite P's commentary on Suv to the same effect, T1783:39.5a8-9, Funayama seminar, n.d.); Jin guangming jing wenju wenju ji hui ben 金光明經文句文句記會本 X358:20.203b24-c2 cf. P-Suv-yezhang 368c11-12; Fangdeng sanmei xing fa 方等三昧行法 T1940:46.944a27-b1: not an acknowledged quote, but can only come from P-Suv-yezhang 368c25-26;

Huiyuan, Dasheng yizhang 大乘義章: T1851:44.707c6-23: a lengthy and in places verbatim summary of P-Suv-dhāraṇī 373a22-b27 (covers only the first six of P-Suv's ten perfections); 840c26-841a4 cf. P-Suvtrikāya 362c22-363a3. I have not been able to find any quotes from P-Suv-yikong in Sui authors. 22 Prof. Funayama and his colleagues have located a quote from P's commentary, preserved in Huizhao's commentary, in which P gives the Skt title of Suv-yezhang as *Karmāvaraṇavināśa. T1788:39.241a20-29; Funayama seminar (unpublished).

23 Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳 T2059:50.345b9-13; Lidai san bao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034:49.98b24-c13; Xu gao seng zhuan 續高僧傳 T2060:50.T50.426a3-b12; Yoshikawa and Funayama (2009): 350-351. The name Sengqiepoluo 伽 婆 羅 has been variously reconstructed *Saṃghabhara, *Saṃghavara, or

  • Saṃghavarman. On the basis of the Xu gao seng zhuan translation of the name as Sengyang 僧養, I will for convenience use *Saṃghabhara here; but it is not my main aim to reconstruct the name of this figure, and this indicates no strong opinion on my part that this is the correct reconstruction. It is interesting to note that like P, SBh (and his sometime collaborator, Mandrasena) is said to have come to China from Funan 扶南.

24 A Japanese translation of the Tibetan version of this text is presented in Tokiya (1971). Tokiya suggests that the two versions of KAP discussed here, T1491 and T1493, lie in a line of development that begins with the *Triskandhaka(-sūtra) (?) 舍利弗悔過經 T1492 (ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, not listed as a genuine An Shigao translation in Nattier 2008), and running through the Wenshu hui guo jing 文殊悔過經 T459, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa; Tokiya (1971): 123. in producing T1493, was aware of and stuck closely to P-Suv-yezhang, or else that PSuv-yezhang in fact postdates T1493. This fact will be important later, when we assess evidence that other aspects of P-Suv may also post-date P.

The complex evidence for these relations between P-Suv-yezhang, SBh’S KAP and JñG’s KAP is too extensive to show in full here, but can be conveniently summarised as follows. First, Table 1 shows a sample section illustrating the kinds of relations found between P-Suv-yezhang and its sources.

Table 1: Sample passage showing matches between P-Suv-yezhang and KAP Bold: verbatim match. Double underline: particularly significant verbatim match (especially long, or especially rare). Dotted underline: match in sense but not wording.

Grey: better match with portions of JñG T1493 1091c23-1092a4 (matching passages only from JñG are shown in footnotes, to allow readers to make direct comparisons). In addition, further such matches are to be found in P-Suv-yezhang §§6, 14, 18 (using the numbering given below in Table 2). P-Suv-yezhang SBh KAP

§3 368b18-c22: 我從無始隨生死流,與一切眾生已造業障,貪瞋癡等之所纏縛,未識佛時、未識法時、未識僧時、未識善惡, 為身口意得無量罪,以惡心故出佛身血、誹謗正法、破和合僧、殺阿羅漢、殺害父母、 十不善法自作教他、見作隨喜,身三、口四、意三業行,於諸眾生橫生毀呰、 斗秤欺誑、以偽為真、不淨飲食以施眾生、於生死六道所有父母更相觸惱、塔物僧物四方僧物、心生偷奪自在而用、如佛所說言教法律過分謬學, 師長教示不相隨從,有行聲聞者、行緣覺者、行大乘者,憙生罵辱、令諸行人心退愁恨、見有勝己便懷嫉妬、法施財施而生障礙、無明所覆邪見疑惑使惡增長、於諸佛所而起惡言、法說非法、非法說法。如是眾罪,齊如諸佛真實慧、真實眼、真實證明、真實平等,悉知 悉見 。奉對懺悔,皆悉發露、不敢覆藏,未作之罪不敢復作,已作之罪今悉懺悔,所作業障、應墮惡道、地獄、畜生、餓鬼、阿修羅、生十二難處。願我此生所有業障皆悉滅盡、未來不受. 1087b3-20: 我從無始生死以來,所造惡業, 為一切眾生障礙,或起貪、或起瞋、或起癡,不識佛、法、僧,不識善、不善法、或以惡身、口、意出佛身血,或誹謗正法、或破和合僧,或殺真人羅漢,或殺父母,或備起十不善道,或已作、今作、當作,或見他作讚歎隨喜,或以身三、口四、意三業行造作眾惡,惡口、罵詈、誹謗他人,或斗秤欺誑於人,或生六道惱亂父母,或取塔寺物,或用僧物、或用四方僧物,或破佛所制戒,或不隨和上阿闍梨語,或瞋、或罵、或誹謗聲聞、緣覺、大乘,或因慳嫉造諸惡業,或惡罵如來,或法說非法、或非法說法。如是一切諸惡,我今於十方諸佛發露懺悔。彼諸如來現見、現知、現證,我於佛前一心發露不敢覆藏、發露已後誓不敢作。是諸罪業應入地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅道、或經八難,願 此 諸罪現前消滅 、 未 來 不生。我今日在諸佛前發露懺悔不敢覆藏、發露之後誓不敢作.

Much of both texts comprises matches to this level of detail, including sequencing of elements and verbatim overlaps in wording. Space forbids showing the matching as above for the entire text (though I did prepare such a full table in conducting the research upon which the present paper is based). The following Table summarises the overall correspondences between P-Suv-yezhang and SBh’s KAP. Interested readers can easily verify the matches by examining the texts themselves. Where the two texts do not match, I specially note the fact.

Table 2: Overall matching between P-Suv-yezhang and KAP [ . . . ] no match P-Suv-yezhang SBh KAP

368a17-28: The Buddha enters a dhyāna, emits light that suffuses the cosmos, etc. (not matched). 1086c26-28: The setting and congregation of the sūtra do not match P-Suv-yezhang. §1, 368a29-b4 1086c28-1087a2 [ . . . ] (not matched) 1087a2-22: A preamble describes recitation of Buddha-names, offerings, ritual purification of the practitioner, brief description of confession, and successive names of Buddhas in the various directions (not matched in P-Suv-yezhang). §2, 368b5-18 1087a22-b3 §3, 368b18-c9 (see Table 1) 1087b3-20 §4, 368c9-22 1087b20-c1 §5, 368c22-369a3 1087c1-3 §6, 369a3-18 1087c3-16 §7, 369a18-a28 1087c17-25 §8, 369a28-b15: Four dharmas that lead to purification of karmic obstructions; four karmic obstructions most difficult to purify (not matched). [ . . . ] (not matched) §9, 369b16-b24 1087c25-1088a11 §10, 369b24-b29 1088a11-22 §11, 369b29-c10 1088a22-b6 §12, 369c10-22 1088b6-17 §13, 369c23-370a3 1088b17-b27 §14, 370a4-15 1088b27-c3 §15, 370a15-23 1088c3-9 §16, 370a23-28: body doctrine. [. . . ] (not matched) §17, 370a28-b4 1088c9-17 §18, 370b4-8 1088c17-20 §19, 370b8-23: body doctrine. [ . . . ] (not matched) §20, 370b23-27 1088c21-24 §21, 370b28-c13 1088c24-1089a5 §22, 370c13-c19 1089a5-a10 §23, 370c19-371a1 1089a10-18 §24, 371a1-8 1089a18-22 §25, 371a8-20 1089a22-b6 §26, 371a20-b3 1089b7-14 §27, 371b3-9 1089b14-20 §28, 371b9-29 [ . . . ] ( not matched) §29, 371b29-c6 1089b20-25 §30, 371c7-12 1089b25-27 §31, 371c13-23 1089b27-c10 §32, 371c23-372a7 1089c10-16 §33, 372a8-13 1089c16-20 §34, 372a13-b24 1089c21-26 (ending with a brief portion unmatched in Suv).

Thus, the sources of P-Suv-yezhang must certainly include KAP. Whether or not the original borrowing from KAP to Suv occurred in India or China, verbatim matching means that the sources of P’s version of the chapter must also include the earlier Chinese version of KAP by SBh. In addition, while it is possible that matches between JñG’s KAP and P-Suv could result from borrowing by JñG, I will argue below that in fact, it is also possible that borrowing went the other way, so that the sources of P-Suv-yezhang include JñG’s KAP. We will also return to other aspects of P-Suv-yezhang below.

Sources of P-Suv-dhāraṇī

Ulzii has recently pointed out that the structure of P-Suv-dhāraṇī's exposition of the bodhisatva path may bear similarities to that of the *Bodhisatvadaśabhūmika-sūtra ("BDBh"). This text exists in three Chinese translations:

1. Kumārajīva's 鳩摩羅什 (344-413; "KJ") Zhuangyan putixin jing 莊嚴菩提心經 T307; 2. *Kivkara's 吉迦夜 (*Kiṅkara? *Kiṃkārya? fl. ca. 472; "Kiv") Pusa shi di jing 菩薩十地經 T308; and 3. Bodhiruci's 菩提流志 (?-727) Akṣayamati 無盡慧菩薩會 found in the Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經 T310(45).

KJ and Kiv are most relevant for our present purposes, since they pre-date P.

The relations between P-Suv-dhāraṇī and BDBh in fact go far beyond the path structure. First, although the correspondence is not tight, aspects of the frame narrative (including the opening question) in §§1, 2, 14 and 15 (using the numbering given in Table 4 below) are clearly parallel in both texts, as may be shown by the following example.

Table 3: Matches in frame narrative between P-Suv-dhāraṇī and BDBh Bold: verbatim matching. Double underline: particularly significant match – unusally long or rare, or structurally significant. Dotted underline: match in meaning but not exact wording. (1) (2) (3) etc. (numbers in parentheses) are added to help the reader keep track of matches. [ . . . ] no match

Grey: better matched in KJ T307 than in Kiv T308 (see footnotes) P-Suv-dhāraṇī Kiv BDBh

§13 376c16-19: 是時,大自在梵王於大會中從坐而起,偏袒右肩, 右膝著地,合掌恭敬,頂禮佛足而白佛言。世尊!希有 難量。是『金光明經』微妙之義究竟滿足,皆能成就一切佛法、一切 965b1-3: 爾時,會中有天名師子幢無礙光耀,白佛言:「世尊!甚奇甚特,是名一切具足,是名究竟一切佛法功德.

佛恩. §14 376c20-377a17: 佛言:(1)如是如是。善男子!如汝所說 。善男子!若得聽聞是『金光明經』,一切菩薩不退阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 。何以故?善男子!是不退地菩薩成熟善根,是第一印,是『金光明微妙經典眾經之王』,故得聽聞受持讀誦 。何以故?善男子!若一切眾生未種善根、未成熟善根、未親近諸佛,不得聽聞是『金光明經』。善男子!是『金光明經』以聽聞受持故, 是善男子、善女人,一切罪障悉能除滅得極清淨,常得見佛 、(2)不離世尊,常聞妙法、常聽正法,生不退地,師子勝人而得親近不相遠離。(3)無盡無減海印出妙功德陀羅尼、(4)無盡無減眾生意行言語 通達陀羅尼、(5)無盡無減日圓無垢相光陀羅尼、(6)無盡無減滿月相光陀羅尼、無盡無減能伏一切惑事功德流陀羅尼、無盡無減破壞堅固金剛 山陀羅尼、無盡無減說不可說義因緣藏 陀羅尼、無盡無減真實語言法則音聲通達陀羅尼、(7)無盡無減虛空無垢 心行印陀羅尼、無盡無減無邊佛身能顯現 陀羅尼:善男子!(8)如是諸陀羅尼等得成就故,菩薩摩訶薩於十方一切佛土

(10) 諸化佛 (11) 說無上種種正法, (11) 於 如 如 不 動 、 不 去 、 不 來 (≈12),善能成熟一切眾生善,(13)亦不見一切眾生可成熟者,(≈14)說種種諸法於諸言辭不動、 不去、不住、不來,(≈15)能現生滅,向無生滅,(16)說諸行法無所去來,一切法無異故。(17)說 965b3-17: 世尊答曰:(1)如是如是。諸天!其有善男子、善女人聞是法正憶念者,當知是阿惟越致菩提薩埵。何以故?天子!是善男子、善女人善根成熟故,令耳根得 聞 是經 ,一切善根成熟 故,得聞此經已,終不離真實觀,

(2)不離諸佛世尊,不離諸佛法,不離轉法輪,(3)不離海印陀羅尼,不離無盡陀羅尼,(4)不離遍入眾生行陀羅尼, (5) 不離無盡光日幢陀羅尼,(6)不離月無垢 相陀羅尼,

(7)不離無垢等起相陀羅尼。(8)若菩薩得是陀 羅 尼 ,(10) 悉能一時變身 為佛,(9)周滿十方(11)教化眾生,(11)然於諸法亦不死、亦不去,(≈12)而度脫眾生,(13)眾生亦不可得,(≈14)說法教化諸文字等亦不可得,(≈15)示現死生亦不生 ,(16) 知諸 平等無 去 來 ,亦不作、非不作故。(17)說是法時,三千菩提薩埵得無生法忍.

The degree of correspondence is not as high as for P-Suv-yezhang and KAP examined above; there is also greater variance between the two texts in the order of the various sections; and there are more sections in P-Suv-dhāraṇī without parallels in BDBh. Nonetheless, there is still a high enough degree of verbatim matching between the two texts that it is clear that the authors of P-Suv-dhāraṇī must have consulted BDBh. Table 4 shows the overall schema of correspondence; once more, due to the volume of the evidence, interested readers are asked to examine the texts themselves to verify the matching. Moreover, once more, as can be seen from some examples in Table 3 above, neither KJ nor Kiv on its own can best explain P-Suv; it looks as though the authors of PSuv had both texts before them (examples are especially clear in §§5, 6, 14).

Table 4: Overall matching between P-Suv-dhāraṇī and BDBh [ . . . ] no match

I have added section numbers in parentheses to Kiv BDBh, in order to make it easier for readers to discern the original order of the text, and how it differs from P-Suv-dhāraṇī. These section numbers are independent of those for P-Suv-dhāraṇī. The section in Kiv BDBh that corresponds to a given section in P is that appearing on the same line of the Table. P-Suv-dhāraṇī Kiv BDBh [ . . . ] (§1) 963b10-15 (not matched in P-Suv) §1, 372c7-20 (§2) 963b15-25 §2, 372c21-29 (§3) 963b25-c11 §3, 372c29-373a2145 (§4) 963c12-964a1

45 In KJ T307, the ten bodhisatva bhūmis are (unusually) associated with different perfections, i.e. (1) none, (2) dāna, (3) śīla, (4) kṣānti etc. The set of terms used for the ten perfections in these texts is relatively circumscribed in distribution, especially when we consider the exact forms found in P-Suv: (1) 檀 dāna, (2) 尸 śīla, (3) 羼提 kṣānti, (4) 毘梨耶 vīrya, (5) 禪那 dhyāna, (6) 般若 prajñā, (7) 方便勝智 upāya, (8) 願 praṇidhāna, (9) 力 bala and (1) jñāna. The use of these terms for the first six perfections, allowing for some minor variations, seems to begin in KJ and run through DhKṣ, Buddhabhadra, Kiv, Kālayaśas, Mandrasena, Ūrdhvaśūnya, and Bodhiruci. The fuller list of ten perfections is more restricted in distribution. As far as I can determine with electronic searching, the combination of the last four perfections without the qualifier 勝智 for 方便波羅蜜, viz. (7) 方便波羅蜜, (8) 願波羅蜜, (9) 力波羅蜜 and

(10) 智波羅蜜 is itself quite unusual before the Tang, and appears mainly in a line of DBh/BBh materials beginning with KJ T286:10.517c20-518a3; DhKṣ T1581:30.954b22-c2; Buddhabhadra Avataṃsaka T278:9.561c3-6, 725b15-24; Bodhiruci DBhSŚ T1522:26.175b7-c5; Guṇavarman BBh T1582:30.1008c26-1009a7. Cf. also Kālayaśas T1161:20.664b24-26; Bodhiruci T761:17.609c26-610a2 (with the same terms for the first six as here in Suv), 624b11-12 (with different terms for some of the first six); Bodhiruci T1531:26.335c4-17. Thus, given that only the first seven perfections are found in KJ and Kiv, it is possible that P-Suv was formed in part by "updating" the text to include the fuller set of ten perfections known (in China) from this DBh/BBh tradition.

The specific term 方便勝智波羅蜜 for upāyapāramitā seems especially telling. Before the Tang, the only other place this term is found, in exactly this form, is P MSgBh (T1595:31.228b28, also 方便勝智等四波羅蜜 etc., 228b10), commenting on MSg 四修方便勝智, T1593:31.125a12. It is therefore possibly significant that a closely related variant on the name of this perfection, 方便智波羅蜜, is found only twice: here in Kiv (T308:10.965a6); and in Guṇabhadra's *Ratnakāraṇḍavyūha 大方廣寶篋經, T462:14.468b2324; of these two contexts, only Kiv matches in the overall sense of the surrounding passage. In a few other places, shengzhi appears associated with the next perfection, no. 8 praṇidhāna: KJ's DBh, 能起無量智門,

是方便波羅蜜;期轉勝智慧,是願波羅蜜, T286:10.517c29-518a1, v. similarly worded in Buddhabhadra Buddhāvataṃsaka, T278:9.561c3-4, Guṇavarman's BBh T1582, T1582:30.1009a5-6 (wording almost identical in Bodhiruci's DBhSŚ T1522:26.175b12-14). This suggests that perhaps, alternatively, the addition of the qualifier shengzhi to the seventh pāramitā might also have resulted from confusion. Even where separated from the perfections, moreover, the phrase 方便勝智 is also rare, appearing, before the Tang, only in P's AV (as a part of a list of ten shengzhi 十勝智, T97:1.921c9-13), other passages in P MSg (127a9-10) and Bh (217c17-19, 233c8-11), P Ratna (證方便勝智/六度生無間, T1656:32.504a15); and, outside P, only once ever, in JñG's *Ratnaketudhāraṇī 寶星陀羅尼經 (世間利智能議論/方便勝智到彼岸, T402:13.538c19).

§4 Each perfection is comprised of/perfected through five factors. Matches through this section overall thin and unsure; basic structure (five vs. ten) dissimilar. §4.1, 373a22-a26 Each perfection breaks down into ten subordinate types. The basic structure of this section is the same in KJ T307.

(§9) 964b21-27 (order diverges from P- §4.2, 373a26-b2 (§10) 964b27-c5 §4.3, 373b3-8 (§11) 964c5-12 §4.4, 373b9-14 (§12) 964c13-21 Low level of matching with Kiv. §4.5, 373b15-20 (§13) 964c22-27 Low level of matching with Kiv. §4.6, 373b21-27 (§14) [964c28-965a5] No match in Kiv. §4.7, 373b27-c5 (§15) 965a6-13 §4.8-10, 373c6-29 (last three perfections, [ . . .] nos. 8-10): unmatched in Kiv/KJ; as Kimura points out, Kiv and KJ use a model of seven perfections. §5, 373c29-374a15: The meaning of (§16) 965a13-29 "perfection" §6, 374a16-b14: Signs at each bhūmi (§6) 964a12-b4 (order diverges from PSuv) §7, 374b15-c5: Names of the bhūmis [ . . . ] (no parallel in Kiv; see Table 5 below) §8, 374c6-375a1: Two obstructions [ . . . ] (*āvaraṇa) particular to each bhūmi (no parallel in Kiv; see Table 5 below) §9, 375a2-11 (§8) 964b14-20 (order diverges from P- Suv)

§10, 375a12-23: Each bhūmi associated (§5) 964a2-12 (order diverges from P- with a samādhi Suv) §11, 375a23-376b17: Names of most of (§7) 964b5-13 (order diverges from P- the ten dhāraṇīs Suv) Bears a loose relation to those in Kiv (order also differs somewhat)46 §12, 376b17-c15 (unmatched in Kiv) [ . . . ] §13, 376c16-19 (see Table 3 above) (§17) 965b1-3 (order diverges from PSuv) §14, 376c20-377a17 (see Table 3 above) (§18) 965b3-17 Suv)

§15, 377a17-b5 (end): Not matched in Kiv/KJ

(§19) 965b17-26 (end): Not matched in P-Suv

Thus, the evidence summarised in Tables 3 and 4 shows that both prior Chinese translations of BDBh must be among the sources of P-Suv-dhāraṇī. However, this is not the end of the story – BDBh is not the only identifiable Chinese source of P-Suv-dhāraṇī.

Not all the terms for the perfections used here appear in MSgBh. That the first six were nonetheless used by P is evidenced by MAV T1599:31.454b27-c3. There, however, they are conjoined with a different set of (transcription) terms for the remaining four perfections, viz. 漚惒拘舍羅波羅蜜 upāyakauśalyapāramitā, 波抳陀那波羅蜜 *praṇidhānapāramitā, 波羅波羅蜜 *balapāramitā, 闍那波羅蜜 *jñānapāramitā, 454c4- 10. These latter terms are also used in P MSg T1593:31.126b19-26 (and corresponding Bh), but to complicate matters even further, MSgBh (very intriguingly, for a work ostensibly deriving from the same translation team in the same phase of its project, and indeed, the same act of translation) uses both sets of terms: 方便勝智波羅蜜 to discuss 漚惒拘舍羅波羅蜜 in the root text; 願波羅蜜 to discuss 波尼他那波羅蜜 in the root text (228c1 ff.); 力波羅蜜 to discuss 婆羅波羅蜜 (228c10 ff.); and 智波羅蜜 to discuss 若那波羅蜜 (228c27 ff.).

46 It is important to note the mere fact that Kiv contains a section on ten dhāraṇī, one per bhūmi, although the wording of the actual dhāraṇīs is not given in Kiv. By contrast, KJ T307 is missing this section altogether. Two extended passages (§§7 and 8) and one verse towards the end of the text also show identifiable debts to the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra ("SdhN"). Moreover, this evidence links P-Suv-dhāraṇī to two separate versions of SdhN, by P and Bodhiruci 菩提流支 (?-527). As we will see below, links to SdhN (in this case, P's) are also evident in P-Suv-yikong. These matches are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: P-Suv-dhāraṇī and the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra Conventions: As above (except no grey) P-Suv-dhāraṇī Bodhiruci SdhN T675 §7 Names of the bhūmis47 374b15-c5 善男子!云何初地而名歡喜?

(1)得出世心,昔所未得而今始得,大事大用,如意所願悉皆成就,大歡喜慶樂故,是故初地名為歡喜地。 (2)一切微細之罪、破戒、過失皆清淨故, 是故二地說名無垢地。 (3)無量智慧光明三昧,不可傾動,無能摧伏,聞持陀羅尼為作本故,是故三地說名明地。 (4)能燒煩惱以智慧火,增長光明,是修行道品依處所故,是故四地說名焰地。 (5)是修行方便勝智自在難得故,見思煩惱不可伏故,是故五地說名難勝地。 (6)行法相續了了顯現,無相多思惟現前故,是故六地說名現前地。 (7)無漏、無間、無相思惟解脫三昧遠修行故,是地清淨無障無礙,是故七地說名遠行地。 (8)無相正思惟修得自在,諸煩惱行不能令動,是故八地說名不動地。 (9)說一切種種法而得自在無患累故,增長智慧自在無礙故,是故九地說名善慧地。 (10)法身如虛空,智慧如大雲,能令遍滿覆一切故,是故第十名法雲地.48 680c4-2349 觀世自在菩薩白佛言:世尊!世尊何故說初名歡喜地,乃至佛地說名佛地? 佛言:(1)觀世自在!菩薩初離生死,得出世間大利,清淨勝妙,歡喜踊躍。是故 初地名歡喜地。

(2)遠離一切微細破戒障故,是故第二名離垢地。 (3)依無量智光明照曜,照諸三昧及聞持陀羅尼,而得自在能作光明,是故第三名光明地。 (4)智火炎熾燒菩提分煩惱習垢,是故第四名為炎地。 (5)即彼菩提分方便修行難勝得勝,是故第五名難勝地。 (6)正念思惟諸有為行,現前證知諸法無相,是故第六名現前地。 (7)無間、無斷、無相正念,遠入行近清 淨地,是故第七名遠行地。

(8)無有諸相自然修行相不能動,是故第八名不動地。 (9)說一切法一切種智無礙自在,得廣大智他不降伏,是故第九名善慧地。 (10)眾生煩惱過患之身如虛空等,如來法身猶如大雲覆眾生界,說法示現,是故第十名法雲地。 [no match: 離一切無明微細習氣、離一切境界智障習氣,無障無礙,於一切法中而得自在,是故第十一名為佛地.]

47 The names used here for the ten bhūmis are telling: 1. 歡喜地; 2. 無垢地; 3. 明地; 4. 焰地; 5. 難勝地; 6. 現前地; 7. 遠行地; 8. 不動地; 9. 善慧地; 10. 法雲地 (P-Suv-dhāraṇī 374b15-c5), for 1. pramuditā bhūmiḥ; 2. vimalā bhūmiḥ; 3. prabhākarī bhūmiḥ; 4. arciṣmatī bhūmiḥ; 5. sudurjayā bhūmiḥ; 6. abhimukhī bhūmiḥ; 7. dūraṃgamā bhūmiḥ; 8. acalā bhūmiḥ; 9. sādhumatī bhūmiḥ; 10. dharmameghā bhūmiḥ; Rahder (1926): 5. In the Chinese record, this list derives from the Daśabhūmika, beginning with KJ's translation; T1521:26.92a12-15. The exact list found in P-Suv, including 無垢地 for the second bhūmi, is very rare. The other only cases I can find are in one passage only in KJ's *Daśabhūmikavibhāṣā (elsewhere, the same text has the more usual KJ list discussed immediately below), T1521:26.91c26-92a15 (though the list of §8 Two obstructions (*āvaraṇa) particular to each bhūmi, 374c6-375a1 (no parallel in Kiv; see Table 4 below)

(1)初地欲行有相道是無明,障礙生死怖畏是無明,依二種麁心是初地障。 (2) 微 細 罪過 因無 ,種 種 行相因無明,依二種麁心是二地障。 (3)昔所未得勝利得故動涌因無明,不具聞持 陀 羅 尼 因無 , 依二 種麁心是 三地障。 (4)味禪定樂生愛著心因無明,微妙淨法愛因無明,依二種麁心是四地障。 (5)一意欲入涅槃思惟、一意欲入生死思惟 、是涅 槃 惟 、 是生死思 惟 為因,生死涅槃不平等思惟無明為因,依 二種麁心是五地障。

(6)行法相續了了顯現無明為因,法相數數行至於心無明為因,依二種麁心是六地障。 (7)微細諸相或現不現無明,一味熟思惟欲斷未得方 便 ,依二 種麁心是 七地 障。

(8)於無相法多用功力無明,執相自在難可得度無明,依二種麁心是八地障。 680c24-681a16:50 [no match: 觀世自在菩薩白佛言:世尊!世尊此諸地,有幾種無明、幾種障對?佛言:觀世自在!有二十二種無明、十一種障。觀世自在!] (1)於初地中,執著人我、法我無明,惡道煩惱染相無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (2)於二地中,微細過無明,種種業道無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (3)於三地中,求欲法無明,滿足聞持陀羅尼無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (4)於四地中,愛三摩跋提無明,愛法無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (5)於五地中,於世間正念思惟,非一向背世間、非一向現世間無明,於涅槃正念思惟,非一向背涅槃、非一向趣涅槃無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (6)於六地中,不如實知有為行現前無明,多集諸相無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。

(7)於七地中,微細相行無明,一向思惟方便無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (8)於八地中,無自然無相無明,諸相不得自在無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (9)於九地中,無量說法、無量名句、上上樂說智慧陀羅尼無明,樂說辯才自在

bhūmis here appears incomplete); and in *Divākara 地婆訶羅 (613-680) T674:16.661b28-29. However, a closely related list, differing only in the name of this second bhūmi, is much more common: 1. 歡喜地; 2. 離垢地; 3. 明地; 4. 焰[var. 炎]地; 5. 難勝地; 6. 現前地; 7. 遠行地 8. 不動地; 9. 善慧地; 10. 法雲地. This list is also used by DhKṣ, BBh 941c21-945a19. It seems originally to derive from KJ: E.g. KJ DBh T286:10.498b29-c3, and passim; *DBh-vibhāṣā T1521:26.22c27-23a2, 23a10, 104b24-28. The same texts also feature an alternate list: 1. 喜地; 2. 淨地; 3. 明地; 4. 炎地; 5. 難勝; 6. 現前; 7. 深遠 8. 不動; 9. 善慧 10. 雲 , T286:10.498b29-c3, T1521:26.70c5-6. It is otherwise thereafter found in Guṇabhadra, T278:9.575b6-13, T678:16.714c19-20, 715a24-b6; Daotai,T1634:32.42c25-43a13; Bodhiruci (of the N. Wei), including the present SdhN passage, T761:17.640c24-641a1, T1525:26.247c1-2, slight var. (3. 光明地; 4. 炎地), SdhN T675:16.680a20-22; and Bodhiruci (of the Tang), T310(45):11.649b25-c18 (cf. p. 214 above).

Meanwhile, the nearest we come to the same list in P is a single anomalous passage in MSg: 1. 歡 喜地; 2. 無垢地; 3. 明焰地; 4. 燒然地; 5.難勝地; 6. 現前地; 7. 遠行地; 8. 不動地; 9. 善慧地; 10. 法雲地, T1593:31.125c27-126a1; repeated in Bh T1595:31.221a16-19. So far as I can determine, this peculiar list seems never to occur in any other translation text, and on the face of it, I would guess that the anomalous names for the third and fourth bhūmis (which never occur elsewhere in isolation from one another either) are the result of conflating the names for the third and fourth bhūmis from the KJ list to make a new name for the third bhūmi, 明焰地; and then coining a new name to fill the resulting gap for the fourth bhūmi, 燒然地. (燒然地 otherwise only occurs as part of the name of a hell, 燒然地獄.) 48 Particularly given that the repeated formulaic form of this summary statement does not match ordinarily through the bulk of this list, the complete verbatim match with Bodhiruci in this case may be significant – perhaps a sign of inconsistent "editing" of the base text. 49 Cf. Lamotte (1935): Ch 9, §4, 125-127, 238-240. 50 Cf. Lamotte (1935), Ch 9 §5, 127-129, 240-242. (9)說法無量、名味句無量、智慧分別無 無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障。 量未能攝持無明,四無礙辯未得自在無 (10)於十地中,大通無明,入微細密無明, 明,依二種麁心是九地障。 迷沒彼二,是故名障。 (10)最大神通未得如意無明,微妙祕密之 (11)於佛地中,於一切境界極微細無明, 藏修行未足無明,依二種麁心是十地障。 他障無明,迷沒彼二,是故名障. (11)一切境界微細智礙無明為因,未來是礙不更生未得不更生智無明為因,是如來地障. P-Suv-dhāraṇī P SdhN

714b24-29:爾時,世尊說是經已,重說偈 377a19-21: 是時,世尊而說偈言: 言:

法通相一味 諸佛說平等 逆生死流道 甚深微難見 若於中執異 是人增上慢 貪欲覆眾生 愚冥暗不見. 逆生死流道 微細深難見 欲染[var. 深 SYMP]癡覆故 凡人不能得.

In addition, two of the actual dhāraṇīs in P-Suv-dhāraṇī are clearly versions of dhāraṇīs found in SBh's Mahāmāyūrī ("MMā"); and, moreover, others in places also probably reflect the influence of SBh's transcriptions. The relationship shown in the case of the tenth dhāraṇī, in particular, is extraordinarily precise and close.51 This obviously resonates with the fact that, as we saw above, P-Suv-yezhang is based in part upon SBh KAP. Table 6 shows this relationship.

Table 6: The dhāraṇīs of P-Suv-dhāraṇī and SBh MMā Conventions: As above Wavy underline: matches outside SBh MMā

Fifth dhāraṇī: 375c10-13: 怛姪他52 (1)訶里訶里尼53 (2)遮履遮履尼 (3)柯羅摩尼 僧柯羅54 摩尼 三婆訶沙尼 (4)剡婆訶尼 悉耽婆訶55尼 (5)謨訶 尼 (6)莎 琰部 吼陛 (7)鎖訶. SBh MMā 449b22-23:56 (1)訶利訶利尼 (2)遮利遮利尼 (3)波羅摩尼 (5)母訶尼娑擔婆尼 (4)剡婆尼 (6)莎炎部(7)莎呵. Tenth dhāraṇī:57 SBh MMā 448a12-25:59

51 Incidentally, the thematic connection between this dhāraṇī and the eponymous notion of "Golden Light" (suvarṇaprabhā) at issue in Suv is clear. MMā contains a myth of origin for the text itself which associates the text with a peacock king of the past called King Suvarṇāvabhāsa or "Golden Light" (in which connection, we should remember that Suv itself is often called "King of Sūtras, Golden Light", Suvarṇabhāsottamendrarāja etc.). In MMā, this dhāraṇī is introduced precisely in the context of the story of this "King Golden Light"; it is a dhāraṇī that he was in the habit of reciting daily, in order to assure the protection and prosperity of his kingdom. (There is no mention of this peacock king in Suv.) 52 On 怛姪他, see p. 233 below. 53 訶里尼: also found in SBh MMā 447b2.

54 柯羅摩(尼) 375c10-11 (broken by an interlinear gloss: 柯羅[留我切]摩尼; the only other instance of the sequence 柯羅摩 is in the name of King Vikramāditya 國王馝柯羅摩阿祑多 in P's biography of Vasubandhu, T2049:50.189c21-22. 55 Cf. a partial match 粽婆耽婆訶智 in SBh MMā 449a9-10. 56 (1) hari hāriṇi, (2) cali cālini, (≈3) tramaṇi trāmaṇi, (5) mohani staṃbhani (4) jaṃbhani (6) svayaṃbhuve (7) svāha; Oldenbourg (1897-1898): 228; Takubo (1972): 15.

57 The treatment of this dhāraṇī given here is only preliminary, and intended merely to show the correspondences between the two versions. I have removed the interlinear glosses from both texts to make it easier to see correspondences in the dhāraṇī itself. I have spaced both Suv and Ch MMā on the basis of comparison with Skt MMā, but this is only a convenience (again to make comparison easier), and pending further study of the dhāraṇī, should not be taken as certainly reflecting true word boundaries in the 376b5-16: (怛姪他58) (1)悉提醯 (2)修悉提醯 (3)姥者禰 (4)姥差禰 (5)毘目底 (6)阿摩詈 (7)毘摩詈 (8)涅摩詈 (9)瞢伽詈 (10)喜懶若竭刺陛 (醯何) (11)刺那竭(刺)陛 (12)醯(13)(婆曼多)跋渴弟(詈) (14)薩婆賴他娑陀呵禰 (15) 摩那死 (16)摩訶摩那死 (17)頞部(吼) 底 (18) 頞 哲 ( 吼 ) 底 (19) 婆 羅 弟 (20)毘羅是 (21)(頞周底) (22)阿美里底 (23)(阿羅是 (24)毘羅是) (25)婆藍

訶米 (26) 婆 藍摩 須詈 (27)( 富樓禰 (28)富棲那摩怒)羅體 (29)鎖訶. (1)悉 提 醯 (2) 藪悉 提 醯 (3)武遮尼 (4)武叉尼 (木柢) (5)毘木柢 (6)阿摩離 (7)毘 摩 (8)尼摩 (曼陀離) (9)亡伽 (10)喜 蘭耳治跋婢 (11)剌

(YM)那伽婢 (12)醯 (13)(摩牖里)跋陀離 (修跋陀離 婆修跋陀離 娑滿多 跋陀離 (14)薩婆他娑陀尼 (波羅末他娑陀尼 ) (15) 摩 那 (16) 摩 訶 摩 那 (17)鷃 柢 (18)鷃 哲 柢 (鷃箒柢) (19)阿羅是 (20)毘羅是 (22)阿摩里柢 (阿摩隷 婆羅彌 婆羅娑離趺羅耐趺羅那摩弩脂 彌里多三恃婆底死里跋陀隷 旃陀隷 旃陀羅 波羅譬修離易修羅那干諦毘多頗易修跋抳) (25)婆羅摩瞿屣 (26) 婆羅摩述柢(薩婆波)(28)羅底 (29)(訶柢) 娑訶.

I have been unable to find matches for any of the other dhāraṇīs as a whole, but some transcription terms in them further strengthen the association with SBh's transcription idiom:

First dhāraṇī, 375a28-b4:頭吼60 Third dhāraṇī, 375b20-22:柯羅智61 Sixth dhāraṇī, 375c20-25:苾頭誘訶底62. . . 曼多羅波杝63 Seventh dhāraṇī, 376a3-7:阿蜜多羅64

underlying Skt. I have arbitrarily taken textual variants noted in the Taishō apparatus for MMā where they make correspondences with Suv clearer, but only where they thus help us with this comparison; this should not be taken as indicating any other reasons for preferring those readings. I have placed portions of one dhāraṇī that seem to have no clear match in the other in brackets. Numbers are inserted to help readers align elements in the Ch and Skt. Since my primary aim is to elucidate the P-Suv version, I have not inserted numbering for elements not included in that version. 58 See n. 52.

59 Skt: (1)siddhe | (2)susiddhe | (3)mocani vimocani | (4)mokṣaṇi | mukte (5)vimukte | (6)amale | (7)vimale | (8)nirmale | aṇḍare | paṇḍare | (9)maṅgale maṅgalye | hiraṇye (10)hiraṇyagarbhe | ratne (11)ratnagarbhe | bhadre subhadre(13)samantabhadre | (14)sarvārthasādhani paramārthasādhani sarvānarthapraśāmani | sarvamaṅgalasādhani sarvāmaṅgalavādhani | (15)manasi mānasi (16) mahāmānasi | (17)adbhūte (18)atyadbhūte | mukte mocani mokṣaṇi | (21)acyute | (23) araje (24) viraje | vimale | amṛte amare amaraṇi | (25)brahme (26)brahmasvare | (27) pūrṇe (28) pūrṇamanorathe | mṛtasaṃjīvani | śrībhadre candre candraprabhe | sūrye sūryakānte | vītabhaye | suvarṇe brahmaghoṣe brahmajyeṣṭhe sarvatrāpratihate rakṣa māṃ (29) svāhā || namaḥ sarvabuddhānāṃ svastir bhavatu Svāter bhikṣor jīvatu varṣaśataṃ paśyatu śaradāṃ śataṃ | huci guci ghuci muci svāhā || Oldenbourg (1897-1898): 223-224; Takubo (1972): 8-9. The section in Lin (2001) on MMā is not helpful with regard to this dhāraṇī; Lin (2001): 2:99-106. For the Suv dhāraṇī, cf. Lin (2001): 1:342-343; referring, however, to YJ, which notably contains no obvious correspondences in transcriptions to the versions treated here; T665:16.421b15-22. 60 頭吼: otherwise only in SBh MMā 449b10-11.

61 柯羅智: otherwise only in SBh MMā 455b26. 62 Cf. 苾頭摩底, SBh MMā 449c14. There may be a faint resemblance with part of the larger dhāraṇī here too. 63 SBh MMā 曼多羅波馱, 456a23. Cf. also 虛空藏菩薩問七佛陀羅尼咒經: 私田鬪 曼多羅波羅娑 波呵, T1333:21.563b23-24, which may match all the last three words of this Suv dhāraṇī, 悉遲遐斗 曼多羅波杝 鎖訶 (but I cannot match up other parts, and transcription differs; HBGR dates this text to the Liang). I guess the last three words are *siddhantu mantra-[[[vrata]]?] svāhā, which is pretty generic, and seems to appear in a number of other mantras (in various transcriptions); not enough to constitute a match. 64 阿蜜多羅: also appears in SBh MMā(2). Some of the overall surrounding dhāraṇī also looks like it matches: 鞞漏翅 鞞漏翅 阿蜜多羅 伽多尼 波樓那婆底, MMā 449c6-8, compared to Suv 鞞柳枳 Ninth dhāraṇī, 376a24-27:斗羅65死 . . .薩婆薩埵南66

In addition, Chinese glosses between the transcriptions of all the dhāraṇīs feature the locution "Wu language" 吳音 (19 instances, nowhere else in Suv, nowhere else in P). This annotation could possibly have been added by a different hand. However, it is worth noting that it is also highly restricted in its distribution in the translation portion of the canon. It is also found in SBh's MMā (21 instances) and SBh's *Anantamukha[-sādhaka-] dhāraṇī 舍利弗陀羅尼經;67 it is otherwise only found in *Buddhayaśas, *Mandrasena and "Zhi Qian".68

In sum, then, P-Suv-dhāraṇī shows clear debts to quite a number of earlier Chinese texts: two versions of BDBh, by KJ and Kiv; two versions of SdhN, by P and Bodhiruci; and SBh's MMā. Between them, these sources account for much of the content of the chapter as a whole.

Sources of P-Suv-yikong

Compared to the two chapters already examined, the situation with P-Suv-yikong is somewhat messier, and for portions of the text, I have been unable to identify a single extended parallel, as I could above. However, for two portions of the chapter, it is clear that one source must be SdhN (once more; cf. P-Suv-dhāraṇī above69); and, moreover, that the authors of P-Suv-yikong consulted and borrowed some of the specific wording of P's Chinese translation of those SdhN passages. The first parallel is relatively short, running for approximately ten Taishō lines. After a portion of apparently unrelated text, P-Suv-yikong continues with the second parallel, which is longer, occupying a total of about two Taishō registers. It is also worth noting that the order in which the passages in question occur in the two texts is not the same; in P's SdhN, the second passage precedes the first. Table 7 shows these relations.

鞞柳枳 阿蜜多羅 伽訶尼 婆力灑尼. But if it does match, it seems unlikley that Suv was taken directly from SBh, since so little of the transcription matches. 65 The combination 斗羅 is otherwise only ever seen in SBh MMā: 斗羅君蛇, 449a10; 基梨已遮奢多斗羅, 458a12-13. 66 Again, there is a weak match in transcription terms in SBh MMā: 薩婆菩地薩埵南, T984:19.454a14. 67 T1016:19.695c13-16 (2 instances). 68 *Buddhayaśas *Ākāśagarbha-sūtra T405:13.651a18; *Mandrasena Ratnamegha T659:16.265b26-c8 (5 instances); "Zhi Qian" *Puṣpakūṭadhāraṇī 華積陀羅尼神咒經 T1356:21.875a20-21 (T1356 is not regarded as an authentic Zhi Qian work in Nattier 2008). In addition, however, SBh's MMā contains over 100 instances of an interlinear gloss reading "Liang language" 梁言, a locution not found in P-Suv. 69 The multiple connections to SdhN are interesting in light of a comment of P's reported in Hyōbi's Saishōō kyō usoku 最勝王經羽足, stating that Suv was preached by the Buddha at the same time as SdhN: 諦 三 云 、 『 深 蜜 』 同 説 、 則 第 三 十 説 ; T2196:56.807b22; Funayama seminar (unpublished). Table 7: P-Suv-yikong and the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra Conventions: As above

First parallel 380b15-20: 若不常不斷,則不一不異。何以故?若一不異法界,若爾者,凡夫人則見真諦,得於無上安樂涅槃。是義不然,是故不一。若言其異者,一切諸佛菩薩行相即是執著,未得解脫煩惱繫縛,則不 阿 耨 多 羅 三 藐 三 菩 提 。 何以 故?

380b20-25: 一切聖人於行非行法中同智慧行。是故不異。是故五陰非有,不從因緣生,非不有五陰,不過聖境界故。非言語之所能及,無名、無相、無因、無緣,無有境界、無有譬喻,始終寂靜,本來自空。 是故五陰能現法界. First parallel P SdhN T677:16.713a14-26: 如來通達微細甚深真實之法,與諸行等過一異相。何以故?淨慧!若執如此,依諸行法修真實觀,能達、能證真如之理,無有是處。何以故?淨慧!若真如與行相不異者,一切凡夫應見真如。復次,一切眾生正在凡位,應得無上如安涅槃。復次,一切眾生於凡位中,亦應能得無上菩提。若真如相異於行相,一切聖人已見真如,則應不能伏滅行相;由不伏滅諸行相故,雖見真諦不能解脫眾相繫縛;若於眾相不得解脫,亦不解脫麁重繫縛;若不解脫二種繫 縛 ,則 不 上 如安 無餘涅槃,亦應不得無上菩提. 713a26-b1: 淨慧!由諸凡夫不見真如,在凡夫位不得無上如安涅槃,亦不能得無上菩提。以是義故,真如之理與諸行一,是義不然。若有人說:『真如與行相不異』者,由此義故,當知是人不如理行.

Second parallel 381a3-9: 梵王!譬如幻師善巧幻術、及幻弟子,於四衢道取諸土沙、草、木、葉等,聚在一處,作種種幻術,使人覩見象 眾 、 馬 眾 、 車 眾 、 軍 眾 、 七 寶 之聚、種種倉庫。若有眾生愚癡無智,不能思 惟 , 不知幻 本 , 聞 作 思惟:「如我所見象、馬眾等,謂是真實, 如見、如聞。」隨能、隨力,各執所見。自言「是 , 於 他 真 ,」後不重 思惟。 Second parallel P SdhN 712a12-b9: 善男子!如巧幻師及幻弟子,於四衢道,或取草、葉及木、石等,聚集一處,現種種幻事,諸象兵、馬兵、車兵、步兵,摩尼、真珠、珊瑚、玉石,及倉庫等。若有諸人,嬰兒、凡夫、愚癡邪智,不能了別草等幻本,是人若見、若聞,作是思惟,謂:「實有此象、馬四兵及以庫藏。」若見、若聞,隨能、隨力執著見聞,作是言說:「此是真實,異此非真。」是人則應重更思量。

381a9-16: 有智之人,則能思惟,了於幻本, 若見、若聞作是思惟:「如我所見象、馬等眾,非是真實。惟有幻事惑人眼目,是處說名象、馬等眾、及諸庫倉。惟有名字,無有實體, 如我所見、如我所聞。」隨能、隨力,不執所見。自言「是實、於他 若有諸人,非嬰兒、凡夫及愚癡邪智,識知如是草等幻本,若見、若聞,作是思惟 : 「 象 、 馬 等 物 及 庫藏。」是人若見、若聞,隨能、隨力執著見聞,作是言說:「如我所思,此是真實,異此非真。」雖隨世言,為顯實 非真,」後不重思惟。是諸智人隨說世語,皆欲令他知實義故,如見、如聞思惟,則不如是。 義,是人不須重更思惟。 381a16-22: 如是,梵王!若有眾生愚癡凡夫,未得出世聖智慧故,未知一切諸法如如不可言說,是諸凡愚若見、若聞行非行法,作是思惟:「實有如是諸法,如我所見、如我所聞,」是諸凡夫人如見、如聞,隨能、隨力,執著所見,自言

是實,於他非真,」後不重思惟。 善男子!如此嬰兒凡夫,未得出世真如聖慧,未識諸法不可言體。是人若見、若聞,諸法所作及非所作,作是思惟:「實 所作及非所作。何以故?可見、可知故。」是人 、 若聞,隨能、隨力,執著見聞,隨見聞說:「此是真實,異此非真。」是人應當須重思量。 381a22-b4: 若有眾生非凡夫人,已見第一義諦、得出世聖慧、知一切法如如不可言說,是諸聖人若見、若聞行法、非行法,隨能、隨力不執著所見,自言是實, 於他非真,後不重思惟:「無實行法、無實非行法,如我所見、如我所聞。惟妄思惟行、非行相,或人智慧。是處說名行、非行法,惟有名字、無有實體,如我所見,如我所聞。」隨能、隨力,不執所見,自言「是實、於他非真、」後不重思惟。是諸聖人,如世語言隨順其說,為欲令他知真實義... 若有諸人,非嬰兒、凡夫,已見真實,及得出世真如聖慧,已識諸法不可言體 , 聞 作是思惟:「如所見知,諸法所作及非所作,皆非實有,但有假相,從分別起,如幻化事,欺誑凡心,於此中起所作、非所作名及餘眾名。」是人如所見聞,不生執著,不作是言:「此是真實,異此非真。」雖隨世言,為顯實義,是人不須重更思惟...

381b2-c5: 如是,梵王!是諸聖人,聖智見故,不可言法如如攝行、非行法,是法如如,為他證智故,說種種名。 P SdhN 712b9-11: 善男子!如是聖人由聖知見,已能覺了不可言體,為欲令他見法實相,故說教句,謂是所作、非所作等。

In addition, three further parallels can be found for brief portions of P-Suv-yikong. The first may not be a true parallel, but comprises an unusual simile that I have otherwise only been able to find in Guṇabhadra's *Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra 大法鼓經 T270 ("MBhH"). The second is not much more than a snippet, but cannot be coincidence, and is important as one of several pieces of evidence that connect P-Suv particularly closely with P's Wushang yi jing 無上依經 T669 ("Wushang"). Finally, the opening verses of the chapter seem possibly to have been cobbled together from a number of sources, but find a particularly close match (for about half the verses) in Mandrasena's *Ratnameghasūtra 寶雲經 T658. Table 8 shows these relations.

Table 8: Other minor parallels in P-Suv-yikong P-Suv-yikong

Analogy of the sound of a drum, wood, skin and drumstick: 380b9-12: 善女天!譬如皷聲,依木、依皮、依捊 [var. 桴] 、依人工等,故得出 Guṇabhadra MBhH T270:9.293a25-27: 迦葉!譬如波斯匿王鼓,何等為鼓?迦葉白佛言:「所言鼓者,皮、木、及捊[var. 桴],此三法和合,是名為鼓. 聲。是鼓聲空,過去亦空、未來亦空、現在亦空 。何以故?是鼓音聲不從木生、不從皮 生、不從捊 生、不從人工生 . . . 381c14-17: 梵王!譬如轉輪聖王,若王在世,七寶不滅。王 若過世 ,一切七 寶 自然而盡。梵王!是『金光明微妙經典』,若現在世, 大正法寶皆悉不滅。 P Wushang 477c6-8: 阿難!譬如轉輪聖王,若王在世,七寶常隨。此經亦爾,若住於世,佛寶、法寶、僧寶種性相續不絕。

P-Suv-yikong 380a20-25: Matches are found in multiple texts, and therefore presented in the footnotes. For abbreviations, see the list at the end of this paper. Conventions otherwise as above.

我問照世界 兩足最勝尊 菩薩正行法 惟願垂聽許 佛言善女天 汝若有疑81者 隨汝意所問 吾 當分別說 云何諸菩薩 行菩提正行

離生死涅槃 利益自他故86

In sum, P-Suv-yikong shows fairly extensive debts to P's SdhN, and smaller likely debts to P's Wushang, and to Guṇabhadra and Mandrasena. Compared to P-Suv-yezhang and P-Suv-dhāraṇī, however, a larger portion of the chapter remains unaccounted for by this evidence. We will return to the problem of these leftover portions below.

Sources of P-Suv-trikāya

P-Suv-trikāya presents us with a very different kind of problem. As Hamano has shown, Suv-trikāya is closely related to the *Kāyatrayāvatāramukha (preserved in Tibetan;

"KTAM"). This parallel material comprises the majority, though not the entirety, of the chapter. The correspondence between the two texts is best explained by the assumption that KTAM is the principal source for P-Suv-trikāya. Given that there is no extant translation of KTAM in Chinese, we should therefore not expect to find extended Chinese parallels for the text, as we did for other chapters above; and indeed, I have been unable to find relations of that sort between it and other Chinese materials.

The debt of Suv-trikāya to KTAM makes it most likely that the chapter was introduced into Suv by someone who directly knew Indic materials. Only one consideration might militate against this likelihood: Wŏnch'uk 圓測 (613-696) was aware of an "old translation" 舊翻 of KTAM into Chinese. If this translation was already in circulation at the time of the composition of P-Suv-trikāya, it is possible that P-Suv-trikāya was composed upon its basis, and thus, by an author who did not necessarily have direct knowledge of untranslated Indic materials. Setting aside this possibility, however, it is probably safest for us to take direct knowledge of an Indic KTAM as a source text as one of the parameters in our search for the authors of Suv-trikāya.

At first sight, this basis of Suv-trikāya in KTAM would seem obviously to require us to conclude that the tradition is right in holding that this chapter, at least, was introduced into Suv in India, and then subsequently translated into Chinese by P. I will argue, however, that the real situation is considerably more complex, and that we cannot be so confident of this conclusion. Before I can discuss this aspect of the problem, however, I must first discuss two other sets of evidence, indicating 1) that at least some parts of PSuv were revised, and more versions of the text may have circulated than are now extant; and 2) that portions of P-Suv are stylistically closer to authors working under the Sui than they are to P's usual idiom.

Two versions of a *Mahāmegha-sūtra passage in the "Lifespan" chapter The "Lifespan" chapter 壽量品 of B and YJ contains an additional passage not found in DhKṣ's T663. A note in B states that this portion was supplied from a translation by JñG. Suzuki Takayasu has argued persuasively that a good part of this passage was originally interpolated from the *Mahāmegha-sūtra ("MM") into Suv. The passage is preserved in Skt Suv. It is thus clear that it must already have been introduced into Suv in an Indic context.

As mentioned above, the Shōgozō ("S") includes a manuscript copy of P's seven-fascicle Suv, and this text, moreover, incorporates the interpolated MM passage. This passage differs significantly between S and B. (By contrast to this passage, the other chapters of P-Suv that most concern us here display only minor textual variants.) Because access to S is still relatively restricted, an Appendix to this paper presents the text of this passage side by side in full for both texts.

As can be seen in the Appendix, discrepancies between S and B extend slightly further than Suzuki's interpolation (361b25-362b4), but are most numerous and significant precisely for that passage. The stroke of luck that has preserved this passage for us shows that the history of Suv in China is still more complex than other extant (canonical) texts would indicate.

It is therefore of considerable interest to consider the nature of the differences between B and S. B and S share so much wording that they cannot be independent of one another. Further, B is lengthier and more detailed than S, so that the most natural supposition would be that B is a revision of S, rather than the other way around. However, we also cannot suppose that S was merely a straight or accurate translation of Skt, which was then expanded upon by the author of B without reference to Skt. Some material in Skt is missing in S, and many of the additions to B have Skt parallels. In places, in fact, we might well say that the author of B was correcting S. Thus, whoever revised clearly did so at least in part by reference to a Skt text.

We cannot be sure, of course, exactly how the two texts before us came into being. However, given that S identifies itself as P's translation, and that the Korean version of B states that the passage was added on the basis of the work of JñG, the most natural supposition might be that P was the first translator to add the passage to Ch Suv, and P's version was then revised by JñG to produce B. This provides circumstantial support for the tantalising possibility that other portions of P-Suv, too, might have been revised after P's time. As we shall now see, this possibility is also supported by some of the stylistic features of P-Suv.

Evidence for a layer of "Sui" authorship or revision in P-Suv We have seen above that the bulk of three out of four chapters of P-Suv have sources in a range of earlier Chinese texts – approximately seven to ten texts in total. This does not jibe easily with the traditional account of the origins of the text – that it was a straight translation from an Indic source text of four chapters already included in Skt Suv. In fact, if it were not for the existence of a supposedly independent translation from Skt in Tibetan, we might well most naturally conclude on the strength of the evidence reviewed above that P-Suv-yezhang, -dhāraṇī and –yikong were in some sense composed in China – that is to say, redacted into their present form and added to Suv on the basis of the sources we have identified. We are entitled to ask, therefore, whether there is other evidence that might also undermine the traditional understanding of the nature and origin of the text for passages not yet covered by the evidence surveyed above.

In fact, I first embarked upon the research that led to the present paper because I casually observed that the language of P-Suv in some respects did not seem congruent with the style of other texts in P's corpus. Obviously, the evidence presented above for P-Suvyezhang, -dhāraṇī and –yikong could account in good measure for such an observation – much of the language in P-Suv naturally does not "sound like" P, because it is not "his", but rather, is inherited from earlier Chinese source texts. However, even the relationships between P-Suv and earlier Chinese sources examined above cannot account for all of the unusual features of the language of the text. In particular, passages not included among those for which we have traced sources above also exhibit "un-P-like" features; and even where passages are paralleled in earlier Chinese sources, the language of P-Suv includes "un-P-like" features that do not come from those sources. Thus, we must still examine the language of the text further, to see what more we can determine about its style and likely provenance.

In evaluating such a question, it is appropriate first to narrow our field of enquiry to the possibilities that are reasonable on the basis of our other evidence. We have already seen above that an overwhelming range of evidence shows that P-Suv was already in circulation by the Sui dynasty – probably by the early 590s at the latest. On the other hand, we have also seen that P's own SdhN is among the sources of P-Suv. Since SdhN is clearly a straightforward translation text, it is quite unlikely that P-Suv was a source of P's SdhN. We also see that P's Wushang may be among the other sources of P-Suv (see also Part 2 of the present study). Finally, we have also seen that very substantial external evidence strongly associates P with the authorship of P-Suv in some form. Thus, as a first approximation, it is sensible to narrow the range of our inquiry to the period from (and including) P's translation activity down to the early Sui.

This is obviously quite a narrow range of possibilities, particularly given the relatively coarse grain of our record, which does not offer us very many intermediate points between P and the Sui to which we might refer. However, even though it comprises in total a relatively small body of text, and even though it is "contaminated" in its stylistic signal by the incorporation of elements from the various other sources identified above, it is striking that we very often encounter in P-Suv turns of phrase that are far more common in the work of Sui translators – JñG, Dharmagupta 達磨笈多/達摩笈多/笈多 (?619), Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍 (517-589), and Vinītaruci 毘尼多流支 (fl. ca. 583) – than they are in P.

For example, the following passage from P-Suv-trikāya (much of which is unparalleled in KTAM) is thick with phrases more typical of the Sui than of P, in addition to other phraseology already in circulation:

Bold: Verbatim match of at least four characters in length, of limited and possibly significant distribution. Wavy underline: Terms or phrases typically found in other corpora, including Sui authors, but atypical of P. Details of distribution of each term or phrase may be found in the footnotes. Authors and texts in which given terms and phrases occur are presented in approximate chronological order. For the sake of brevity in presenting complex evidence, I have omitted Chinese characters and dates for most translators, and I have omitted names of texts and citations of loci, in favour of presenting a concise sketch in each case. I usually omit instances occurring after the Sui, as not relevant to our present purposes. Readers interested in further details may easily enough directly consult the Taishō canon via CBETA or SAT searches. Names of P and Sui authors, and of P’s texts, are presented in bold, to make it easier for readers to zoom in on especially pertinent evidence.

364a1-17: 善男子!是身因緣、境界、處所、果依於本,難思量故。若了義說, 是身即是大乘、 是如來性、是如來藏,101依於此身得發初心、修行中心而得顯現,102不退地心亦皆得現,一生補處心、103金剛之心、104如來之心105 而悉顯現,無量無邊如來妙法皆悉顯現,依此法身不可思議摩訶三昧106而得顯現,依此法身得現一切大智。是故二身依於三昧、107依於智慧而得顯現。如此法身, 依於自體說常說實,依大三昧故說於樂,依於大智故說清淨。是故如來常住、自 在、安樂、清淨,依108大三昧、 一切禪定 首楞嚴 等、一切念處 大法念等、大慈、大悲、 一切陀羅尼、一切六神通、一切自在、一切法平等攝受,如是佛法,皆悉出現 。此大智、佛大十力、四無所畏、四無礙辯、 一百八十不共之法、 一切希有不可思議117法,皆悉顯現. 102 而得顯現: before the Tang, otherwise only occurs in P Wushang, P FXL T1610:31.794b16, and JñG T310(39):11.615a7-8. In Wushang, as here, the context also discusses dharmakāya, Buddha nature/tathāgatagarbha, and fundamental purity: 阿難!云何是性是諸聖性?一切聖法緣此得成,一切聖人依因此性而得顯現,故我說之為諸聖性。阿難!我今說如來性,過恒沙數一切如來不共真實,從此法出而得顯現名如來界。信樂正說,深味愛重,一切聖賢人戒定慧身即得成就,是故此法名為法身。是法者,相攝不相離,不捨智,非有解。是依、是持、是處。若法不相攝相離,捨智,有解,亦是依、是持、是處。是故我說:一切法藏無變異故,名為如如;無顛倒故,名為實際;過一切相,名為寂滅;聖人行處無 分別智之境界故,名第一義。阿難!是如 來 , 、 不染、不淨,自 相應; T669:16.470b19-470c3.

103 Cf. KJ Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā: 天子!諸菩薩有四心,能攝因、能攝果。何等為四?一者,初發心,二者, 行道心,三者,不退轉心,四者,一生補處心, T464:64.482b11-13. 104 金剛之心: DhKṣ MPNMS, Fonian T656, P FXL. 105 如來之心: (before the Tang) only in Dharmarakṣa T399, DhKṣ, Ūrdhvaśūnya. 106 Cf. n. 109. 107 Cf. n. 109. 108 From this point on, the passage is similar in gist to KTAM vv. 99-101: ye shes mi rtog mtshan nyid do | ting 'dzin chen po gcig pu la | ting nge 'dzin yod thams cad ni | khongs su chud par bstan pa yin || (99) yid bzhin nor bu gcig pus kyang | bsam pa sna tshogs skong byed ltar | de bzhin mi rtog ting 'dzin gcig | sems can don ni sna tshogs byed || (100) de dag las mang tha dad pas | de phyir ye shes dngos gcig la | ting nge 'dzin gyi bye brag gis | mang po dag kyang 'dogs par byed || (101).

A similar example may be found in the following passage from P-Suv-yikong, which is particularly dense in connections to the Sui:

380c7-18: 時善女天答梵王言:大梵王!若佛所說,是真甚深。一切凡夫不得其味,118是聖境界,微妙難知119。若我心依於此法,得安樂住。120是真實語者,願令一切五濁惡世121無量無邊眾生122皆得金色三十二相、123非男非女,124坐寶蓮華, 125受無量快樂,126雨天妙華,127天諸音樂,不鼓自鳴,128一切供養,皆悉具足。是時,善女天說是語已,一切五濁惡世129所有眾生皆悉金色具足三十二相、130非男非女,131坐寶蓮華,132受無量快樂,133猶如他化自在天宮,134無諸惡道,135寶樹行列, 136七寶蓮華137遍滿世界,138雨眾七寶139上妙天華,作天伎樂。140如意寶光耀善女天即轉女形作梵天身.

that the list is expounded in detail in Wushang, and only mentioned in passing here, it is more likely that the present passage is based upon Wushang than the other way around. On Wushang, see also Part 2 of the present study. 117 希有不可思議: another rare phrase also found in P Wushang, T669:16.469b5. However, in all versions except the Korean, the text reads 如來希有如來不可思議, so that the match is not exact. Also occurs in JñG, Narendrayaśas, P MSg (and corresponding Bh, the only other place that actually has 希有不可思議法), Lishi. 118 不得其味: Guṇabhadra, KJ, Narendrayaśas. 119 微妙難知: Kang Senghui, Kang Mengxiang, Zhi Qian, Dharmarakṣa, KJ, Buddhavarman/Daotai. 120 得安樂住: Faju, Fonian and Buddhayaśas, Puṇyatara and KJ, Buddhabhadra, Buddhabhadra and Faxian, DhKṣ, Buddhajīva and Daosheng, Guṇabhadra, Mandrasena and SBh, Bodhiruci, Gautama Prajñāruci, Mingzheng, JñG; P MSgBh (5) only. 121 五濁惡世: "Kang Sengkai", Dharmarakṣa, Śīlamitra, Tanwulan (*Dharmaratna), KJ, DhKṣ, Guṇabhadra, Dharmamitra, Gongdezhi, SBh, Buddhaśānta, Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, Vimokṣaprajñāruci, JñG, Dharmagupta; never in P. 122 邊 眾  : KJ, Dharmayaśas, DhKṣ, Shengjian, Fazhong, Buddhabhadra, Guṇabhadra, Guṇavarman, Ūrdhvaśūnya, SBh, Bodhiruci, Jin'gang xian lun, JñG, Narendrayaśas; never in P. 123 皆...得金色三十二相: see n. 135; cf. n. 130. 124 非男非女: Dharmarakṣa, Buddhavarman/Daotai, Fonian, KJ, Dharmayaśas, DhKṣ, Buddhabhadra, Zhiyan, Guṇabhadra, SBh, Bodhiruci, JñG, Narendrayaśas; in P, only once in AKBh.

125 坐寶蓮華: KJ's SP, JñG's SP; Zhi Qian, Fonian, Buddhayaśas, KJ, Shengjian, Fazhong, Daotai, Buddhabhadra, Kālayaśas, Wise and the Foolish, SBh, Gautama Prajñāruci, JñG; never in P. 126 無量快樂: Dharmarakṣa, Śīlamitra, DhKṣ, Tanjing, Guṇabhadra, Gautama Prajñāruci, Dharmagupta, JñG. 127 雨天妙華: only in Ūrdhvaśūnya, Narendrayaśas, Śikṣānanda, Prajñā. 128 音樂不鼓自鳴: Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論, DhKṣ, Zhiyan, Buddhabhadra *Buddhāvataṃsaka, Dharmagupta, JñG; never in P. 129 See n. 121. 130 There is a clear parallel in JñG's 商主天子所問經: 猶如他化自在天。彼諸眾生身皆金色,具足三十二相, T591:15.123c20-22; cf. n 123, n. 134. On 商主, see Table 9 immediately below. 131 See n. 124.

132 See n. 125. 133 See n. 126. 134 The only other place analagous phrases are found before the Tang is under the Sui: 譬如他化自在天宮, JñG T824:17.861c13; 亦如他化自在天宮, Dharmagupta T415:13.867c9-10; cf. n. 130. 135 無諸惡道: another relatively rare phrase, which may hint at a source of the ideas in the present passage (if not much of the language); it occurs, once again, in KJ's SP, T262:9.27c25 (see n. 123), in a context that contains a number of the features of the felicities described here: a state without gender, free of the evil destinies, where all beings have golden bodies with the thirty-two marks of the mahāpuruṣa: 無諸惡道,亦無女人,一切眾生,皆以化生,無有婬欲。得大神通,身出光明,飛行自在,志念堅固,精進智慧, 普皆金色,三十二相而自莊嚴, T262:9.27c25-28; this wording is taken over almost verbatim in JñG's retranslation of SP, T264:9.162b16-19. 136 寶樹行列: Mokṣala, Fonian, KJ, Shengjian, Buddhabhadra, Kālayaśas, Dharmamitra, JñG; never in P.

Of course, these are only short passages, and it is hard to arrive at any far-reaching conclusions upon this basis. To provide another perspective, which might furnish a better overview of the extent of this phenomenon in the text, Table 9 presents a selection of phrases throughout P-Suv that are very frequent in Sui authors, and otherwise very infrequent or unknown in P.

Readers should note that in Table 9, I have omitted instances of the phrases and terms listed which occur in works outside P and the Sui translators, because the evidence, already copious, would have been unmanageably profuse.141 It is therefore important to note that I am not claiming that all the terms and phrases listed here never occurred before the Sui. In many cases (as in the case of phrases annotated in the passages presented immediately above), these terms and phrases occur quite frequently in the works of translators going back as far as the generation of Kumārajīva, and in some cases, even further. The significant pattern, however, is that even where these phrases are indeed older than P, they seem mostly to do a detour around the works most firmly ascribable to him, so that their use seems to be atypical of P’s work. (In some cases, in fact, we might suspect that the use of such terms may have been largely confined to the North, prior to the Sui.) Conversely, they are extremely copious in writers of the Sui.

Table 9: Phraseology in P-Suv that is more typical of the Sui than of P P: all texts ascribed to P excepting P-Suv. P-ref: a reference corpus of "straight" translation texts ascribable with reasonable confidence to P142

白佛: P-Suv "Lifespan" (MM interp), -trikāya, -dhāraṇī, -yezhang, -yikong (18 times total) P-ref: only three times in SdhN (we might wonder why!); P: Vaj (inherited from Bodhiruci), Wushang, Apitan (36!), Yijiao, Lishi, Dazong, Samaya(1); Sui translators: hundreds of times 如是思惟: P-Suv-trikāya 364b4 P: JDZL only; Sui translators: 100+ ~~之身: 世尊之身, P-Suv "Lifespan" (MM interp) 361c11 and S(!); 如是之身 – trikāya 363c20-21, 如此之身 365a3-4, 如來之身 363c22, 364c15; 如來之身 – dhāraṇī 374b12 (also in DhKṣ chapters)

~~之身 in "P" otherwise only in Dazong! Sui translators: 140+ ~~之道: 聞緣覺大乘之道 P-Suv-yezhang 369c24-25, 370b26, 370b29, 菩薩摩訶薩修行菩提之道 370c19-20; (DhKṣ chapters also) ~~之道: P-ref: never; P: Wushang (2), Yijiao, MSgBh (once), FXL (2), SBKL, SXL, Lishi, AF; Sui translators: 50+ ~~之相: P-Suv-yezhang 371c5-6 P-ref: never; P: Wushang, Yijiao (4), SBKL (5), SDL, AF; Sui translators 100+

137 七寶蓮華: Kang Senghui, "Zhi Qian", Nie Daozhen, Faxian, Dharmarakṣa, KJ, DhKṣ, Fazhong, Kālayaśas, Juqu Jingsheng, Dharmamitra, SBh, Bodhiruci, JñG; but never in P. 138 遍滿世界 : Fonian, KJ, (Qin) Saṃghavarman, Buddhayaśas, DhKṣ, Vimokṣaprajñārṣi, Gautama Prajñāruci, JñG, Narendrayaśas; but never in P. 139 雨眾七寶: Kiv and Tanyao T2058, anon. T156, T946. 140 作天伎樂: "Zhi Qian", Fonian, KJ, Faxian, DhKṣ, Buddhajīva and Daosheng, Guṇabhadra, Zhiyan, "Juqu Jingsheng", Dharmāgatayaśas, Kālayaśas, Mandrasena, Ūrdhvaśūnya, Gautamaprajñāruci, JñG; but never in P. 141 Once more, readers who are interested in such details are invited to consult the Taishō canon via CBETA or SAT searches. 142 AV, SdhN, Lü, AKBh, Vim, MSg, MAV, Ālamb, Hast, Ratna, SK; I have excluded Vaj as containing much material inherited from Bodhiruci (Harrison 2008); and texts like ZSL and MSgBh as probably containing a mix of translation and other (e.g. "lecture") material. 懺悔: P-Suv-yezhang, approx. 30 times (also DhKṣ chapters)

P-ref: never; P: JDZL (2), FXL, SXL, AF, Dazong, Vas bio; Sui translators: 100+ (even setting aside JñG T1493) 哀愍: P-Suv-yezhang 368b6 "P": Yijiao only; Sui translators: approx. 70 歸命: P-Suv-yezhang 368b9 P: only Yijiao, AF; Sui translators 50+ 道場: P-Suv-yezhang 371a2, -dhāraṇī 374a10, in a portion of the "Sārasvatī" Ch 大辯天品 supplemented in B from JñG 386c25-387a3 (five times), 387a27-28, JñG "Fuzhu" 402a18-19 (DhKṣ chs also) P: Yijiao only; Sui translators 130+ 不思議: P-Suv-yezhang 不思議 369a16-17, -dhāraṇī 376b28 (DhKṣ also) P-ref: never; P: MSgBh (once only), Apitan, AF and Dazong; Sui translators 250+ (and even more times in Sui Chinese authors, e.g. 325 times in Jizang's T1780 alone)

魔波旬: P-Suv-yezhang 魔波旬 371a3 P: never; Sui translators: hundreds of times 馬瑙: P-Suv-yezhang 371a29 P: never; Sui translators 100+ 車璩: P-Suv-yezhang 371a29 (DhKṣ also) P: never; Sui translators: dozens of times 於意云何: P-Suv-yezhang 371b2 P: Wushang only (5 times); Sui translators: 100+ 佛剎: P-Suv-yezhang 368a19 (DhKṣ also) P: never; Sui translators 200+ 盈滿: P-Suv-yezhang 369a1, -dhāraṇī 374a17, 374b1-2 P: Lishi only (37 times); Sui translators 40+ 坐禪: P-Suv-yezhang 372b12 P: JDZL, Lishi (once each); Sui translators 50+ 須彌山: P-Suv-yezhang 須彌山 371a26, -dhāraṇī 373a1 (DhKṣ also) P: AKBh (once only), Vaj (inherited from Bodhiruci), Wushang, FXL, Lishi (33); Sui translators 100+ 大慈大悲: P-Suv "Lifespan" (MM interp) 361c1, -trikāya 364a13, -yezhang 370b6, -dhāraṇī 373c2

P: never; Sui translators: 80+ 作是語已: P-Suv-yikong 380b29 P: never; Sui translators 150+ 商主: P-Suv-dhāraṇī 373a11, JñG "Fuzhu" ("Exhortation") chapter 401b20 "P": Apitan only; Sui translators: 100+ 如上所說: P-Suv "Lifespan" (MM interp) 361b3, -yikong 380c2 (and DhKṣ 394a9- 10)

P: once each in Vaj, Apitan, Dazong; Sui translators approx. 100 無量無邊眾生: P-Suv-yikong 380c10 (and DhKṣ 386c1) P: never; Sui translators 50+ 娑婆世界主大梵天王: P-Suv-yikong 380c4 P: never; Sui translators 25+ 踊躍歡喜: P-Suv "Lifespan" (MM interp) 362c5, -yikong 380b29; JñG "Fuzhu" 402a20-21

P: never; Sui translators 10 行菩提行: P-Suv-yikong 380b28-c27 (10 times) P: never; Sui translators 10+ 五濁惡世: P-Suv-yezhang 368a20, -yikong 380c7-18 (twice) P: never; Sui translators 10 安樂一切眾生: P-Suv-yezhang 369c5, 370a9-10, 370b3, 371a18 P: never; Sui translators: 9

Finally, it is also well worth noting the word 怛姪他 (*tad yathā ), which opens all the dhāraṇī in P-Suv-dhāraṇī (see Table 6 above). This word is quite common from the Tang onwards, but before the Tang is found only in JñG T264, T1337, and T1340 – and in T993, ascribed to JñG's master "Jñānayaśas 闍那耶舍 ([fl. 564-572]; et al.", SYM).

Thus, as we see, it is possible to find in P-Suv many terms that are unknown in a reference corpus of P's works, and indeed, unknown or rare in any works ascribed to him, which, if they do occur in P, bunch in works of the most dubious ascription (like Yijiao, Dazong, AF, Lishi, etc.); yet the same terms appear very copiously in the works of Sui translators – in some cases, many hundreds of times. Some of these terms, moreover, also appear precisely in those chapters of B that are supposed to have been added from JñG. Such terms are found in all four of the chapters of P-Suv, and also in the "Lifespan" chapter MM passage. In addition, however, they seem to be disproportionately concentrated in P-Suv-yezhang, which, as we saw above, is a parallel to JñG's KAP T1493, and also seems to show specific debts to the wording of JñG's version of the text. It is also very striking that the most frequently repeated term in the dhāraṇīs of P-Suvdhāraṇī, 怛姪他 (*tad yathā), is found before the Tang only in JñG and his master Jñānayaśas (in a text upon which JñG himself may also have collaborated).

We must bear in mind that there were certainly many more people active between P and the Sui translators than those whose identities we know. Thus, I do not think that the evidence of Table 9 shows that any of our known, named Sui translators necessarily had a hand in producing our extant P-Suv. However, we saw above from the evidence of S that at least the "Lifespan" chapter MM passage of P's translation was revised by someone at some point. In combination with the evidence examined in this section, this seems to warrant the more conservative conclusion that our extant P-Suv is unlikely to be an unadulterated product of P or his group, but rather, that it is more likely at least to have been revised in significant part by someone more closely associated with the Sui milieu (which could also mean a northern milieu).

Summary and discussion On the basis of the evidence surveyed above, it is clear that the chapters comprising PSuv have a number of sources, most of which have not previously been identified.

Setting aside briefly the problem of whether the text was composed in China or not, we must count among the sources of P-Suv at least KAP, BDBh, SdhN, MMā and KTAM; probably Wushang; and possibly also the *Mahābherīhāraka and the Ratnamegha. If we include the "Lifespan" chapter in our deliberations, we must also add MM to this list.

We also saw that in the case of many of these sources, close correspondences in exact wording indicate that Suv is not only based upon these sources in content, but that the authors of P-Suv must have closely consulted existing Chinese versions of the texts. In the cases of P-Suv-yezhang and P-Suv-dhāraṇī, moreover, it is possible to show that the authors of P-Suv probably actually consulted two prior Chinese versions of the main source text for each chapter respectively. In addition, we also saw that the authors of PSuv made use of two earlier versions of SdhN, by Bodhiruci and P himself. We also saw that material from SdhN is found in two chapters, P-Suv-yikong and P-Suv-dhāraṇī. These complex patterns of relation to prior Chinese materials are difficult to reconcile with the assumption that P-Suv is merely a "straight" translation from an Indic source text.

We have also seen that at least in the case of the "Lifespan" chapter MM passage, two versions of the text exist, one preserved in S, and one in B. This raises the possibility that portions of the text might have been modified before reaching their final form in B. In addition, we saw that the text contains a significant number of words, set phrases and turns of phrase that are very common in Sui authors, but rare in P, especially in those works most likely to be authentic and straight P translations. We also saw that in the case of P-Suv-yezhang, the text shows a number of verbatim affinities with JñG's KAP T1493. In conjunction, this evidence suggests the likelihood that whatever the precise origins of P-Suv, parts of perhaps all the chapters underwent at least some modifications after P's time, in a milieu closer to that of the Sui authors.

Ultimately, in assessing the likelihood that P-Suv or parts thereof were in some sense composed in China, rather than translated, we must in fact consider two sets of evidence, Chinese and Tibetan. We will momentarily set aside the Tibetan side of the problem, which will be treated in Part 2 of the present study. On the basis of this Chinese evidence alone, then, how should we assess the likelihood that portions of P-Suv were composed in China?

It is worth pausing to note that in its general outline, the process of adding to Suv by incorporating material identifiably from other texts is congruent with what was already known previously about the text, and need imply nothing about whether or not the text was composed in India or China. Even within the compass of P-Suv, prior scholarship had already identified KTAM as a source of P-Suv-trikāya, and Ulzii's work pointed in the direction of BDBh as a source of P-Suv-dhāraṇī; in addition, Suzuki had shown that the "Lifespan" passage came from MM. A similar instance is known elsewhere in the text: an additional portion in YJ's "Sarasvatī" chapter includes a hymn paralleled in Skt epic.

More broadly, Suzuki has also shown that in a looser sense, much of the content of a whole series of chapters in Suv can be accounted for by a campaign on the part of its authors to incorporate models from both Buddhist and non-Buddhist sources alike, in a manner that seems calculated to make Suv more competitive in the "religious marketplace" of greater India, by showing it to offer Buddhist alternatives (sometimes specifically Mahāyāna alternatives) to various spiritual goods offered by competitors.148 Perhaps a similar dynamic may underlie the incorporation into the text of medical lore, which Salguero characterises as having little particularly "Buddhist" about it. The same might even be true of the echoes of dramatic conventions and aesthetic theory (e.g. the Nāṭya-śāstra) pointed out by Gummer.

On the other hand, there is also another indication that this process of addition to the text may have continued in China. The Uyghur translation of the Suv-trikāya chapter contains additions not known in any other versions of the text. Wilkens has identified some of this material as possibly deriving from the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 T1585, and considered the possibility that it was added to the Chinese text before its translation into Uyghur.

We must also recognise that a whole range of complex factors may have contributed to the pattern of evidence that we see before us. This requires us to keep in mind quite a number of possibilities and considerations, most significantly:

1. New chapters of Suv may indeed have been composed in an Indic context, on the basis of material from sources like KAP, BDBh, SdhN and MMā. Chinese translators of those chapters may then have recognised the relationship to those other texts, and consulted prior Chinese translations of those materials, to produce (some of) the patterns of verbatim relation we find between P-Suv and Chinese predecessors. Similarly, it is conceivable that JñG, in translating his KAP T1493, may have recognised the affinities with P-Suv-yezhang and consulted it, so that influence flows from P-Suv-yezhang to JñG KAP, rather than in the other direction. 2. The relationship of P-Suv-trikāya to KTAM most probably indicates (setting aside the possible onetime existence of a lost Ch translation of KTAM) that the author of that chapter, at least, was directly aware of and working from untranslated Indic materials. 3. (Some of) the present content of P-Suv might reflect ideas current in India (perhaps in oral form) at the time Paramārtha himself left India, perhaps in the generation of his teachers. Thus, even though our only evidence is preserved in China, the ideas may still derive (perhaps in part) from an Indian milieu.

4. P (perhaps only in some cases) may have inherited and reworked pre-existing Chinese texts, already composed upon the basis of the parallels we have traced here. 5. Some of the discrepancies between P-Suv and other P works may be due to shifts in the composition of P's translation team over time, or other changes in his style. In particular, we should bear in mind that Sengyin's preface ascribes P-Suv to a particularly early phase of P's translation career (553). 6. The external evidence for P's authorship of some version of the chapters of PSuv, as reviewed above, is extraordinarily strong. 7. Nonetheless, some of the chapters may also have been composed in China, on the basis of pre-existing Chinese texts, by persons other than “P” (outside P’s team and circle), and added to Suv thereafter. 8. Material by P may also have been later reworked by someone else before reaching its present form. 9. In addition, the chapters of P-Suv need not all have the same compositional history. Therefore, different combinations of the above factors and scenarios may account for the various chapters.

With this many factors and possibilities in play, it is probably unrealistic to expect that we can arrive at any irrefutable explanation of the exact process by which P-Suv was composed, and therefore, of the exact nature of our extant texts. In light of this caveat, the following suggestion is therefore necessarily tentative.

However, despite these uncertainties, I do believe that the most economical and judicious explanation of the Chinese evidence is the following:

"P"('s group) composed, rather than translated, some version of the chapters comprising P-Suv, and translated the "Lifespan" chapter MM passage; this text included a version of P-Suv-trikāya composed on the basis of P's knowledge of the Indic KTAM; with the possible exception of the "Lifespan" chapter MM passage as preserved in S, portions of these chapters were subsequently further modified by some party (or parties) working between P and the early Sui; P-Suv-yezhang is a possible exception, as it may have been composed in toto after the translation of JñG's KAP.

One major obstacle still stands in the way of this hypothesis, however: the existence of a supposedly independent Tibetan translation of Suv, made directly from an Indic original, which incorporates all four chapters of P-Suv. I will examine this second side of the problem in the sequel to this paper.


The interpolated *Mahāmegha passage in the "Lifespan" chapter in the Shōgozō and Baoliang versions of Suv

See p. 226 above.

Conventions: Variants (from the Taishō apparatus): S[ong]; Y[uan]; M[ing]; K[orean]; P[alace] Bold: wording unique to either version Dotted underline: wording the same but order differs Wavy underline: possible markers of authorship Grey: not in Skt I have not punctuated S, because I wanted to convey an accurate impression of the manuscript. Baogui T664 Shōgozō ("Paramārtha") 361b25-c26: 是時,大會有婆羅門,姓憍陳如、名曰聖記,在於眾中諦心安坐,無量百千婆羅門眾前後圍遶,而共恭敬供養如來,聞佛世尊壽命八十應般涅槃,涕淚悲泣[var. 位 M],與於百千婆羅門眾俱,從坐起,頂禮佛足,白言:「世尊!若佛如來憐愍利益一切眾生,大慈大悲,欲令皆悉得大安樂,為眾生作真實父母,最上無等及無等[var. 礙 P]等,為世間作歸依覆護,令諸眾生快樂清涼,如淨滿月作大光明,如日照於優陀延山,若佛世尊等觀眾生如羅睺羅,願佛為我施一恩德。」是時,如來默然不答。於此會[var. 大會 P]中有栗車毘國王童子,名曰一切眾生喜見, 在大眾中具足辭[var. 詞 SYMP]辯善能問答。是時,王子承佛神力,語婆羅門憍陳如言 :「大 婆 羅 !汝於 尊 求何恩德?我能為汝施如意恩。」婆羅門言:「善哉、王子!我等願欲恭敬供養世尊之身。154是故欲得如來舍利是芥子許 [var. 許恭敬供養 SYMP]。所以者何?如我所聞,若善男子及善女人 恭敬供養如來舍利,六天帝主富貴安樂,必得無 窮 。」是時,王子即便答言:「大婆羅!汝一心聽。若欲願求無量功德及六 彼時大會有婆羅門姓憍陳如名曰聖記 在於 眾中諦心安坐 迦如來 頂礼 從坐起 无量百千聞佛涅槃內生 悲156皆悉欲令 為无等等為世間作歸依覆護

令快樂清涼如月光明如優 眾生如羅睺羅願 德如來默然

於此會中有王子栗車毗善能問答是時王子承佛力何等我能與汝如意之恩 憍陳如 言善哉王子我等 以者何 有大利益是時王子


人圍遶 恭敬供養 悲苦 佛足白言世尊憐愍利益得大安樂為眾生作真實 施留舍利令諸眾生知 故

所求 二乘但 王子是金光明微妙經典 與於其眷屬俱 大慈大父母

延山若佛等視佛恩 一切喜見具足辨才語憍陳如汝求 願留舍利所 語言諦聽汝應 不知攝持无略說 婆羅門言 如是 功德 无量 難思難解我等 先所不知故不願求汝

天報 ,此[var. SYMP]『金光明[var.金經 SYMP]諸經之王』,難思、難解、無窮,聲聞緣覺所不能知,此經攝持 ,無邊福報不可思議。我今為略說之 。」婆羅門言:「善 哉 ,王如是『金光明[var. - SMYP]微妙經功德無邊,難解、難覺,乃至如此 思議。我等邊國婆羅門等作如此是 SYMP]說:『若善男子及善女 佛舍利如芥子許,置小塔中,暫時、恭敬、供養,功德無邊,是人命 六天主,受上妙樂不可窮盡。汝今不願樂供養舍利,求此報耶。』如王 今 從 求 一 今云何而不求之 如是我今欲從佛求一恩 光明福報如是功德汝子! 典』, [var. 人, 禮拜 云何而是恩。 謂難解難覺法身舍利分布 邊國如芥子許

361c27-362b4: 是時,王子即以偈答婆羅門言: 設河駛流中 可生拘物華 世尊身舍利 畢竟不可有[var. SYMP] 假使烏赤色 拘枳羅 白形 世尊真實身 不可成舍利 設使[var. 令 SYMP]閻浮樹 能生多羅果 佉受 羅樹等 轉生菴羅實 如來身無滅 不可生舍利 設使龜毛等 可以為衣裳 佛身非虛妄 終無有舍利 假令蚊蚋脚 可以作城樓 如來寂靜[var. 真實 SYMP] 無有舍利事 假令水蛭蟲 口中生白齒 如來解脫身 終無繫縛色 兔角為梯橙[var. 隥 SYMP] 從地得昇天 邪思惟[var. YM]舍利 是時王子以偈答言

如恒河流駛 拘物頭不生 世尊法身者 終无有舍利 如烏變為赤 拘枳羅白色 世尊法身者 終无有舍利 如閻浮法愛 滅自果生他

世尊法身者 終无有舍利 如龜无毛衣 而可設有之 如來真實身 終无有舍利 如蚊脚城樓 而可設作之 如來寂靜身 終无有舍利

如水蛭无骨 設可言齒白 如來解脫身 終无有舍利 假令兔角梯 從地得昇天 耶思惟舍利 終无有是處

假令鼠食月 阿修羅 不能

耶思惟舍利 終无有是處

鼠登兔角梯 修羅 依舍利盡惑 如蠅大醉酒 於佛無正行 如驢但飽食 歌舞令他樂 能說及能行 假使[var. 設令 和合相愛念 舍利虛妄身 (2)如波羅奈[var. 於佛起虛妄 (1)如海大[var. 大海 新生女人力 法身無邊際 不能攝如來 譬如諸鳥雀 功德無是處 SYMP]月除

乘 var. 技 YM] 等


假令蠅大醉 飛能至窠穴 耶思惟舍利 終无有是處 假令驢飽食 歌舞作伎樂

耶思惟舍利 終无有是處 假使烏與鵄 同時一樹栖

和合相愛念 是事不可得

如海大舶船 滿中諸財寶 女人新產生 執持不到邊 (1) (2)如波羅奢葉 不能遮風雨 於佛起虛妄 生死終不滅

譬如諸鳥雀 不能舍香山 煩惱依法身 不為煩惱動 如是如來身 冣 深難思量 若能如法觀 是為得所願 蝕[var. 食 解脫無是處不能造窠穴不能至三終無有伎[ 凡夫二乘 自他無是處 SYMP]烏與同時一樹栖如來真實體俱有無是 奢 SYMP]葉不能遮風雨生死終不滅 SYMP]舶 具足諸財寶 執持無是處不淨地煩其義亦如不能銜香山

煩惱依法身 不為煩惱動 如是如來身 甚深難思量 若不如法觀 所願不成就 362b5-23: 時,婆羅門聞此義已,即便說偈答王子言: 哉 汝 真 大吉祥人 善巧方便 於理不動 已獲正記 王子聽我 今次第說 度世依處 佛德難思 如來境界 無能知者 一切諸佛 不與他共 一切諸佛 本來寂靜 所修行同 後際 常住 一切諸佛 一切諸佛 一切諸佛 同共一體 如是等義 是如來法 時婆羅門言

所修行同 後際 常住 善哉善哉 汝真佛子 大吉祥人 善巧方便 於理不動 已獲正記 王子聽我 今次第說 度世依處 佛德難思 如來境界 无能知者 一切諸佛 不與他共 一切諸佛 本來寂靜 一切諸佛 一切諸佛 一切諸佛 同共一體 如是等義 是如來法 如來真身 非所造作 如來 真身 非所造作

所以者何 諸佛無生 內外無礙 隨化眾生 無有 色像 非於血肉 有於舍利 方便示現 真法為身 是名如來 佛身如是 如是之義 為請如來 SYMP]演分別 真實之義

所以者何 諸佛无生 內外无[閡??] 隨順眾生 无有色像 為无與等 无有破壞 恒現八相 真法无二 无染无垢 164 金剛不毀示現身相如來大仙如是身者云何而得為化眾生一切正覺法界清淨王子當知如如來說我已聞知廣[var. 開

金剛不毀示現色身如來大仙如是之身常真定慧為 眾生一切正覺法界清淨王子當知 故求舍利 開方便門 362b24-c3:165 是時,會中三萬二千天子,聞說如來如是甚深壽量義已,一切皆於無上菩提發堅固心,歡喜踊躍,異口同音 說偈讚言: 一切如來[var. 諸佛 SYMP] 不般涅槃 一切諸佛 身無破壞 但為成熟 諸眾生故 前際後際中際 方便勝智 示現涅槃 如來 不可思議 如來 常無破壞 如來 種種莊嚴 是時會中三万諸天聞是妙法一切皆發阿 耨多羅三藐三菩提心歡喜讚歎

一切如來 不般涅槃

一切諸佛 身无礙壞 但為成熟 諸眾生故 前際後際中際 方便勝智 示現涅槃 如來 不可思議 如來 常无破壞 如來 種種莊嚴 眾生法界 皆為利益 眾生法界 皆為利 他


AF The Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith 大乘起信論 T1666 AKBh Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya 阿毘達磨俱舍釋論 T1559 (P) Ālamb Ālambanaparīkṣā 無相思塵論 T1619 (P) Apitan Fo Apitan jing chujia xiang pin 佛阿毘曇經出家相品 T1482 AV Arthavistara-sūtra 廣義法門經 T97 (P) B Baogui 寶貴; his synoptic Suv T664 BBh Bodhisatvabhūmi BDBh *Bodhisatvadaśabhūmika-sūtra, esp. T307 (KJ), T308 (Kiv) Bh Bhāṣya Ch Chinese D Derge edition of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka Dazong Da zong di xuan wen ben lun 大宗地玄文本論 T1669 (P) DBh Daśabhūmika-sūtra DBhSŚ *Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra 十地經論 T1522 DhKṣ *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 FXL Foxing lun 佛性論 T1610 (P) Hast Hastavālaprakaraṇa 解捲論 T1620 (P) IBK Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 JDZL Jueding zang lun 決定藏論 T1584 (P) JñG *Jñānagupta 闍那崛多, esp. T1493 KAP *Karmāvaraṇapratisrabdhi-sūtra, esp. T1491 (Kiv), T1493 (JñG) Kiv *Kivkara 吉迦夜, esp. T1491 KJ Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 KTAM *Kāyatrayāvamukha-śāstra = sKu gsum la 'jug pa'i sgo zhes bya ba'i bstan bcos, D3980/Q5290. Asian Classics Input Project electronic text (Lhasa, bstan 'gyur, ha 1a-8a) Lishi *Lokasthānābhidharma-śāstra 立世阿毘曇論 T1644 (P) Lü Lü ershier mingliao lun 律二十二明了論 T1461 (P) MAV Madhyāntavibhāga 中邊分別論 T1599 (P) MBhH Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra 大法鼓經 T270 MM Mahāmegha-sūtra 大方等無想經 (a.k.a. 大雲經) T387 (DhKṣ) MMā Mahāmāyūrī-sūtra 孔雀王咒經 T984 (*Saṃghabhara) MPNMS Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra MPPU *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa 大智度論 T1509 (KJ) MSg Mahāyānasaṃgraha 攝大乘論 T1593 (P) MSgBh Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya 攝大乘論釋, usu. T1595 (P) M-W Sir Monier Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary P Paramārtha 真諦 P-Suv Chapters of Suv ostensibly translated by P P-Suv-dhāraṇī Suv Ch. 6, "On the Utterly Pure Bhūmis of the Dhāraṇīs" 陀羅尼最淨地品, ascribed to P P-Suv-trikāya Suv Ch. 3, "On Distinctions among the Three Bodies" 三身分別品, ascribed to P P-Suv-yezhang Suv Ch. 5, "On the Extinction of Karmic Obstructions" 業障滅品, ascribed to P P-Suv-yikong Suv Ch. 9, "On Fulfilling Vows in Reliance upon Emptiness" 依空滿願品, ascribed to P Q Peking version of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka Ratna Ratnāvalī 寶行王正論 T1656 (P) S Shōgozō 聖語蔵 (referring to the manuscript of Suv dated 768) Samaya(1) Samayabhedoparacanacakra 十八部論 T2032 (KJ) SBh *Saṃghabhara 僧伽婆羅 SBKL Shiba kong lun 十八空論 T1616 (P) SdhN Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra: 解節經 T677 (P) or 深密解脫經 T675 (Bodhiruci 菩提流支) SDL Si di lun 四諦論 T1647 (P) SK Sāṃkhyakārikā (with commentary) 金七十論 T2137 (P) Skt Sanskrit SP Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra Suv Suvarṇaprabhāsottama-sūtra 金光明經: T663 (DhKṣ); T664 (B), T665 (YJ) SWXL San wuxing lun 三無性論 T1617 (P) SXL Suixiang lun jie shiliu di yi 隨相論解十六諦義 T1641 (P) T Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經, as accessed via CBETA (2011) References to the Taishō follow the order: Text number, volume number, page, register and line number. Thus e.g. T225:8.483b17 is text number 225, volume 8, page 483, second register, line 17. TACL "Textual Analysis for Corpus Linguistics" Tib Tibetan Tib II Tib trans. of Suv ascribed to Jinamitra, Śīlendrabodhi and Ye shes sde D556/Q175 (see Nobel 1944: xiii) Tib II-dhāraṇī The "Dhāraṇīs" chapter in Tib II Tib II-trikāya The "Three Bodies" chapter in Tib II Tib II-yezhang The "Karmic Obstructions" chapter in Tib II Tib II-yikong The "Fulfilling Vows in Reliance upon Emptiness" chapter in Tib II Vaj Vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā; unless otherwise indicated, refers to 金剛般若波羅蜜經 T237 (P) Vas bio Posoupandou fashi zhuan 婆藪槃豆法師傳 T2049 Vim Viṃśikā 大乘唯識論 T1589 (P) Vibh *Vibhāṣā 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 T1546 Wushang Wushangyi jing 無上依經 T669 (P) X Shinsan dai Nippon zokuzōkyō 卍新纂大日本續藏經

References formatted as for T XSL Xianshi lun 顯識論 T1618 (P) XZ Xuanzang 玄奘 Yijiao Yijiao jing lun 遺教經論 T1529 YJ Yijing 義淨, especially his translation of Suv, T665 ZSL Zhuanshi lun 轉識論 T1587 (P)


Bhattacharya (2010) – Bhattacharya, Gouriswar. "How to Justify the Spelling of the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Term Bodhisatva?" In From Turfan to Ajanta: Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, edited by Eli Franco and Monica Zin, pp. 35-49. Bhairahawa: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2010. CBETA (2011) – 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. 3.10, 2011. Funayama (2006) – Funayama Tōru 船山徹. "Kan'yaku to chūgoku senjutsu no aida: kanbun butten ni tokuyū na keitai wo megutte" 「漢訳」と「中国撰述」の間──漢文仏典に特有な形態をめぐって

[Between Chinese Translation and Chinese Composition: On a Particular Configuration in Chinese Buddhist Scriptures]. Bukkyō shigaku kenkyū 仏教史学研究 45, no. 1 (2006): 1–28. Funayama seminar (unpublished) – "Shintai Kon kōmyō so itsubun" 眞諦『金光明疏』佚文. Materials prepared for research seminar led by Funayama Tōru, 2005-2011, entitled "Shintai sanzō to sono jidai" 真諦三蔵とその時代, Kyoto University. Gummer (2012) – Gummer, Natalie D. "Listening to the Dharmabhāṇaka: The Buddhist Preacher in and of the Sūtra of Utmost Golden Radiance." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80, no. 1 (2012): 137-160. Hamano (1984) – Hamano Tetsunori 浜野哲敬. "Sanjin nyūmon ron ni tsuite" 『三身入門論』について." IBK 32, no. 2 (1984): 162-163. Hamano (1985) – Hamano Tetsunori 浜野哲敬. "Kon kōmyō kyō 'Sanjin funbetsu bon' ni tsuite 『金光明経・三身分別品』について." IBK 33, no. 2 (1985): 296-299. Harrison (2008) – Harrison, Paul. "Experimental Core Samples of Chinese Translations of Two Buddhist Sūtras Analysed in the Light of Recent Sanskrit Manuscript Discoveries." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, no. 1-2 (2008[2010]): 205-250. Ishii (2003) – Ishii Kōsei 石井公成. "Daijō kishin ron no yōgo to gohō no keikō: NGSM ni yoru hikaku bunseki" 《大乘起信論》の用語と語法の傾向―NGSM による比較分析 [Terminological and Syntactical Tendencies in the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna: An Analysis by Means of NGSM]. IBK 52, no. 1 (2003): 287-293. Ishii (2012) – Ishii Kōsei 石井公成. "Shintai kan'yo bunken no yōgo to gohō: NGSM ni yoru hikaku bunseki" 真諦關與文獻の用語と語法―NGSM による比較分析 [The Vocabulary and Syntax of

Paramārthan Texts: A Comparative Analysis Using NGSM]. In Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramārtha], edited by Funayama Tōru 船山徹, 87120. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012. Keng (2009) – Keng, Ching 耿晴. “Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramârtha (499569) and His Chinese Interpreters.” PhD dissertation. Harvard University, 2009. Kunaichō Shōsōin jimusho (2010) – Kunaichō Shōsōin jimusho 宮内庁正倉院事務所, ed., Takasaki Jikidō 高崎直道, Tsukishima Hiroshi 築島裕 and Minagawa Kan'ichi 皆川完一, general editors 監修. Kunaichō Shōsōin jimusho shozō Shōgozō kyō kan karā dejitaru ban daisanki daisankai haihon 宮内庁正倉院事務所所蔵聖語蔵経巻カラーデジタル版 第 3 期 第 3 回配本. Jingo keiun ninen gogangyō 3 神護景雲二年御願経 3. Tokyo: Maruzen 丸善, 2010. Lamotte (1935) – Lamotte, Étienne. Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra: L'explication des mystères, Texte tibétain édité et traduit. Louvain: Bureaux de Recueil, Bibliothèque de l'Université, 1935. Lin (2001) – Lin Guangming 林光明, ed. Xinbian Dazang quan zhou 新編大藏全咒. The New Edition of All Mantras in Mahāpiṭaka. Mahāpiṭaka-mantramāla-purṇāṅga-nava-saṃskaraṇaṃ. 18 vols. Taipei: Jiafeng chubanshe/Mantra Publisher, 2001. Ludvik (2004) – Ludvik, Catherine. "A Harivaṃśa Hymn in Yijing's Chinese Translation of the Sutra of Golden Light." Journal of the American Oriental Society 124, no. 4 (2004): 707-734.

Ludvik (2006) – Ludvik, Catherine. Recontextualizing the Praises of a Goddess: From the Harivaṃśa to Yijing's Chinese Translation of the Sutra of Golden Light. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2006. Ludvik (2007) – Ludvik, Catherine. Sarasvatī, Riverine Goddess of Knowledge: From the ManuscriptCarrying Viṇā-Player to the Weapon-Wielding Defender of the Dharma. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Nagano (1988) – Nagano Sadako 長野禎子. "Kon kōmyō kyō ni okeru Benzaiten no seikaku 『金光明経』における「弁才天」の性格 [The Characteristics of Sarasvatī in the Suvarṇaprabhāsottamarājasūtra]." IBK 36. no. 2 (1988): 235-239. 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. Oldenbourg (1897-1898) – Oldenbourg, Serge. "Mahāmāyūrī vidyārājinī." Zapiski Vostochnago Otdyeleniya Imperatorskago Russkago Archekologicheskago Obshchetsva 11 (1897-1898): 218-261. Ono (1929) – Ono Genmyo 小野玄妙. "Ryō Shintai yaku Kon kōmyō kyō jobun 梁真諦訳金光明経序文." Butten kenkyū 仏典研究 1, no. 2 (1929): 5. Ono (1934) – Niryō Sei 二楞生 (Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙). "Taizō bunko koitsu zenpon mokuroku (1) 大藏文庫古逸善本目録(一)." Pitaka ピタカ 5 (1934): 15-20. Radich (2008) – Radich, Michael. "The Doctrine of *Amalavijñāna in Paramārtha (499-569), and Later Authors to Approximately 800 C.E." Zinbun 41 (2008): 45-174. Radich (2012) – Radich, Michael. "External Evidence Relating to Works Ascribed to Paramārtha, with a Focus on Traditional Chinese Catalogues." In Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramārtha], edited by Funayama Tōru 船山徹, 39-102[L]. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012. Rahder (1926) – Rahder, Johannes. Daśabhūmikasūtra. Leuven: J.-B. Istas, 1926. Salguero (2013) – Salguero, C. Pierce. "'On Eliminating Disease': Translations of the Medical Chapter from the Chinese Versions of the Sutra of Golden Light." eJournal of Indian Medicine 6 (2013): 21-43. Skjaervo (2004) – Skjaervo, Prods Oktor. This Most Excellent Shine of Gold, King of Kings of Sutras: The Khotanese Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. 2 vols. Central Asian Sources V. Cambridge: Harvard University Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 2004. Suzuki (1996) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "The Mahāmeghasūtra as an Origin of an Interpolated Part of the Present Suvarṇaprabhāsa." IBK 45, no. 1 (1996): 495-493 (=28-30[L]). Suzuki (1998a) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "Daijō kyōten hensan katei ni mirareru kontekusuto no idō: nyorāi no ikotsu ni kansuru tairon wo megutte 大乗経典編纂過程に見られるコンテクストの移動― 〈如来の遺骨に関する対論〉を巡って." Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 東洋文化研究所紀要 136 (1998): 227-253[L]. Suzuki (1998b) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰 (1998). "Kon kōmyō kyō 'Nyorai juryō bon' to Daiun kyō

金光明経 如来寿量品』と『大雲経』." Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 東洋文化研究所紀要 135 (1998): 1-46[L]. Suzuki (2004) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "Rites and Buddhism: A Perspective from the Sarasvatīparivarta in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa." IBK 52, no. 2 (2004): 12-17[L]. Suzuki (2005) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "The Unchanged Intention of the Compilers of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa: An Examination through the Verification of the Hypothesis on 'the Independence of [[[Mahāyāna]]] Buddhism'." IBK 53, no. 2 (2005): 20-26[L]. Suzuki (2006) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "The Primary Introduction of the Rites for Good Fortune into the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Described in the Śrī-parivarta." IBK 54, no. 3 (2006): 42-50[L]. Suzuki (2007) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "An Intention of the Compilers of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Expressed and Intimated in the Dṛḍhā-parivarta." IBK 55, no. 3 (2007): 64-72[L]. Suzuki (2008) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "The Characteristics of 'the Five Chapters on the Various Gods and Goddesses' in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa." IBK 56, no. 3 (2008): 66-73[L]. Suzuki (2009) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "The Attainment of Supreme Enlightenment through the Offerings Represented in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa." IBK 57, no. 3 (2009): 78-86[L]. Suzuki (2010) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "Linking the Buddha's Attainment of Supreme Enlightenment to the Welfare of Beings in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa." IBK 58, no. 3 (2010): 62-70[L]. Suzuki (2011) – Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰. "The Beginning: The First Chapter of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa." IBK 59, no. 3 (2011): 104-112[L]. Takasaki (1974) – Takasaki Jikidō 高崎直道. Nyoraizō shisō no keisei: Indo daijō Bukkyō shisō kenkyū 如来蔵思想の形成―インド大乗仏教思想研究. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1975. Tokiya (1971) – Tokiya Kōki 釈舎幸紀. "Chibetto yaku Bosatsukyō no yakuchū チベット訳『菩薩蔵経』の訳註." Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū 龍谷大学論集 397 (1971): 122-145. Takubo (1972) – Takubo Shūyo 田久保周誉, ed. Bonbun Kujaku myōō kyō 梵文孔雀明王經. Ārya-mahāmāyūrī vidyārājñī. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin, 1972. Ulzii (2011) – Ulzii, Jargal ウルジ・ジャルガル. "Kon kōmyō kyō no kenkyū: 'Saijō ji darani bon' no kōzō ni tsuite『金光明経』の研究―「最浄地陀羅尼品」の構造について." IBK 59, no. 2 (2011): 124- 127[L]. Wilkens (2001) – Wilkens, Jens. Die drei Körper des Buddha (Trikāya): das dritte Kapitel der uigurischen Fassung des Goldglanz-Sūtras (Altun Yaruk Sudur): eingeleitet, nach den Handschriften aus Berlin und St. Petersburg herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert. Berliner Turfantexte 21. Berlin: Kommission Turfanforschung der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften/Brepols 2001. Yoshikawa and Funayama (2009) – Yoshikawa Tadao 吉川忠夫 and Funayama Tōru 船山徹, trans. Kō den (ichi) 高僧伝(一). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 2009.