Source: Harrison 2002

Harrison, Paul. “Another Addition to the An Shigao Corpus? Preliminary Notes on an Early Chinese Saṃyuktāgama Translation.” In Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: In Honor of Doctor Hajime Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday, 1-32. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 2002.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

This text is approximately equivalent to T101(20). Harrison notes that the two texts are "suspiciously similar in wording . . . If this translation was indeed by Faju, it could be that he based his version on the earlier T101 rendition."

Edit

15

 This text is approximately equivalent to T101(20). Harrison notes that the two texts are "suspiciously similar in wording . . . If this translation was indeed by Faju, it could be that he based his version on the earlier T101 rendition." T0111; 佛說相應相可經

Harrison suggests a provisional ascription of T101, the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, to An Shigao, with the exception of sections 9 and 10. Harrison argues on the basis of internal, stylistic evidence, such as the use of prose to translate Indic gāthās, the choice of Chinese equivalents for Buddhist terms, and the introductory and closing formulae which are telling of An Shigao's work. However, Harrison sees grounds for caution in the fact that Dao'an does not attribute the text to An Shigao, although “Daoan was quite capable of making tentative attributions on the basis of style.” Thus, he suggests that a more definite attribution is best left until a more thorough study of An Shigao's terminology is completed.

Edit

 Harrison suggests a provisional ascription of T101, the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, to An Shigao, with the exception of sections 9 and 10. Harrison argues on the basis of internal, stylistic evidence, such as the use of prose to translate Indic gathas, the choice of Chinese equivalents for Buddhist terms, and the introductory and closing formulae which are telling of An Shigao's work. However, Harrison sees grounds for caution in the fact that Dao'an does not attribute the text to An Shigao, although “Daoan was quite capable of making tentative attributions on the basis of style.” Thus, he suggests that a more definite attribution is best left until a more thorough study of An Shigao's terminology is completed. An Shigao, 安世高 T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章

According to Harrison, T101(9) (untitled) is not by An Shigao, even if the rest of T101 may well be. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, lists among "ancient variant translations" 25 works with titles that Shiio (1937) noticed match texts in T101. However, nos. 9 and 10 are missing from this list. T612 is "the same translation" as T101(9), but is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in the present Taisho. Harrison suggests that T101(9), along with T101(10), might be more likely to be by Dharmarakṣa than An Shigao. However, he also says that T612 "prosodically ... seems rather irregular for Dharmarakṣa, and in many respects the style and diction are not out of line with other works by An Shigao. He also notes that T612 is not ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Sengyou.

See also Nattier (2008) for a summary of relevant scholarship. Nattier merely says that the "style (of this text) appears to be of a different vintage" (66).

Edit

2-4, 10

 According to Harrison, T101(9) (untitled) is not by An Shigao, even if the rest of T101 may well be. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, lists among "ancient variant translations" 25 works with titles that Shiio (1937) noticed match texts in T101. However, nos. 9 and 10 are missing from this list. T612 is "the same translation" as T101(9), but is ascribed to Dharmaraksa in the present Taisho. Harrison suggests that T101(9), along with T101(10), might be more likely to be by Dharmaraksa than An Shigao. However, he also says that T612 "prosodically ... seems rather irregular for Dharmaraksa, and in many respects the style and diction are not out of line with other works by An Shigao. He also notes that T612 is not ascribed to Dharmaraksa by Sengyou. See also Nattier (2008) for a summary of relevant scholarship. Nattier merely says that the "style (of this text) appears to be of a different vintage" (66). T101(9); (untitled)

According to Harrison, T101(10) (untitled) is probably not by An Shigao, even if the rest of T101 may well be. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, lists among "ancient variant translations" 25 works with titles that Shiio (1937) noticed match texts in T101. However, nos. 9 and 10 are missing from this list. Harrison suggests that both might be more likely to be by Dharmarakṣa than An Shigao. Sengyou lists in CSZJJ (9a15) a Si fu yu jing 四婦喻經 as an ascription to Dharmarakṣa, which could well correspond to T101(10). Harrison suggests, "This is very probably the same sutra, if not the same translation." Harrison also notes that no. 10 "seems to me slightly more regular prosodically than most other An Shigao works, with a greater proportion of four-character phrases."

See also Nattier (2008) for a summary of relevant scholarship. Nattier merely says that the "style (of this text) appears to be of a different vintage" (66).

Edit

2-4, 10

 According to Harrison, T101(10) (untitled) is probably not by An Shigao, even if the rest of T101 may well be. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, lists among "ancient variant translations" 25 works with titles that Shiio (1937) noticed match texts in T101. However, nos. 9 and 10 are missing from this list. Harrison suggests that both might be more likely to be by Dharmaraksa than An Shigao. Sengyou lists in CSZJJ (9a15) a Si fu yu jing 四婦喻經 as an ascription to Dharmaraksa, which could well correspond to T101(10). Harrison suggests, "This is very probably the same sutra, if not the same translation." Harrison also notes that no. 10 "seems to me slightly more regular prosodically than most other An Shigao works, with a greater proportion of four-character phrases." See also Nattier (2008) for a summary of relevant scholarship. Nattier merely says that the "style (of this text) appears to be of a different vintage" (66). T101(10); (untitled)