Táng Fàn liǎngyǔ shuāngduì jí 唐梵兩語雙對集
A Paired Collection of Táng-and-Sanskrit Two Languages attributed to 僧怛多蘖多 (集) and 波羅瞿那彌捨沙 (集)
About the work
A single-juan late-Táng Sanskrit-Chinese paired vocabulary list, structurally and substantively a partial excerpt of Lǐyán’s Fànyǔ zámíng (KR6s0024, T2135), with the Sanskrit siddham removed and only the Chinese-character transliterations of Sanskrit words retained. The work is attributed in the byline to two Central-India monks, but the modern scholarly consensus (cf. Fóguāng dà cídiǎn p. 3932.2) is that the attribution is pseudepigraphic: a later excerpter abridged Lǐyán’s Fànyǔ zámíng and attached the names of two otherwise-unknown Indian monks. Preserved in the Taishō canon at T54 no. 2136.
The byline at the head reads:
中天竺摩竭提國菩提樹下金剛座寺苾蒭 Saṃdarta-gata 僧怛多蘖多 Prājña-niceśa 波羅瞿那彌捨沙(二合) 出 (“[Compiled] by Saṃdarta-gata [phonetic] Sēng-dá-duō-niè-duō and Prājña-niceśa [phonetic] Bō-luó-jù-nuó-mí-shě-shā (combined), bīkṣus of the Vajrāsana Monastery beneath the Bodhi-tree at the country of Magadha in Central India.“)
Prefaces
The text has no preserved auto-preface. The body opens immediately with the first vocabulary entries, which are essentially identical in content and order to the opening of Fàn-yǔ zá-míng: rén 人 = 麼弩史也 (manuṣya); ròu 肉 = 麼婆 (māṃsa, slightly variant transliteration from KR6s0024’s 麼娑); pí 皮 = 折麼 (carma); xiě 血 = 嚕地羅 (rudhira); gǔ 骨 = 摩拏 (aṣṭi- or manda-); máo 毛 = 嚕忙 (roman); etc. The list continues through body-parts, sense-organs, dimensions, colors, sounds, and other topical fields parallel to the Fàn-yǔ zá-míng but with the Sanskrit siddham originals removed.
Abstract
The work is a derivative excerpt of Fàn-yǔ zá-míng, with the names Saṃdarta-gata 僧怛多蘖多 and Prājña-niceśa 波羅瞿那彌捨沙 attached as the supposed Indian compilers. The attribution is pseudepigraphic: neither name appears elsewhere in Tang-canonical or Indian Buddhist sources, and the work’s content is nearly identical to Fàn-yǔ zá-míng with only the Sanskrit siddham originals omitted. The conventional explanation (cf. Fó-guāng dà cí-diǎn) is that a later abridger extracted the Chinese-side of Lǐ-yán’s work and gave it pseudo-Indian authorship to enhance its authority. The Vajrāsana Monastery (金剛座寺) at Bodhgaya was a real and prestigious institution — the choice of monastic affiliation in the pseudo-byline lends maximum authority to the abridgement.
Dating: derivative of Fànyǔ zámíng (mid-to-late Táng, KR6s0024); the abridgement must postdate Lǐyán’s work but is otherwise undatable. notBefore = 750 (post Lǐyán’s earliest possible activity); notAfter = 900 (broad late-Táng / early Five Dynasties bracket). Catalog dynasty 唐.
The work’s attribution is treated by modern scholarship not as historical fact but as a witness to the late-Táng practice of attaching authoritative-sounding Indian-monastic provenance to derivative Chinese compilations.
Translations and research
No substantial dedicated Western-language secondary literature located. See discussions in:
- Fó-guāng dà cí-diǎn 佛光大辭典 p. 3932.2 — the standard treatment of the pseudepigraphy.
- R. H. van Gulik, Siddham (Nāgpur, 1956) — passing reference.
Other points of interest
The pseudepigraphic attribution to Vajrāsana Monastery is itself of historical interest as a window into late-Táng Buddhist literary practice — the appeal of authoritative Indian-monastic provenance was strong enough to motivate spurious attribution-by-abridgement of Sino-internal compilations.