Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. “Zō agon kyō no kenkyū to shuppan 『雑阿含経』の研究と出版.” Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 17 (1988): 1-45.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
Guṇabhadra's Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 T99 , as transmitted and presented in the Taishō, for instance, has been jumbled; further, two juan were lost at some point, and in the present juan 23 and 25, the loss had been made up by interpolating material from an Aśokāvadāna. The wording of these interpolations differs from extant Chinese versions of the Aśokāvadāna, showing that they must have been taken from some alternate, lost source. Hanayama 花山 proposed that this lost source was a text entitled Wuyou wang jing 無憂王經 ascribed to Guṇabhadra [for which see Chu sanzang ji ji T2145:55.13a4]. These interpolations must already have been made by the early sixth century, since Sengyou's 僧祐 Shijia pu 釋迦譜 preserves quotations from them, with the identification of the source as the "Saṃyuktāgama", as does the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121. The evidence of the Jing lü yi xiang, moreover, shows that the text had also already become jumbled by this point, since it cites the juan numbers of the disordered version. Further, the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 also gives titles of "excerpted sūtras" 抄經, featuring material from these Aśokāvadāna sections, for which it also gives the "Saṃyuktāgama" as the source. Strangely enough, in fact, according to Mizuno, this is in fact the only source from which the Chu sanzang ji ji has material from the Aśokāvadāna, even though the other canonical versions of the text existed by the Liang: four texts are listed, 阿育王獲果報經; 阿育王於佛所生大敬信經; 阿育王供養道場樹經; 阿育王施半阿摩勒果經; T2145:55.25b2-5. Mizuno summarises a history of scholarship by Anesaki 姉崎, Kajio 梶尾, Maeda 前田, Hanayama 花山, Lü Cheng 呂澂 and Yinshun 印順 attempting to restore T99 to its original order, on the basis of comparison with the (anonymous) "alternate" Saṃyuktāgama 別譯雜阿含經 T100, the exposition of “sūtras” 契經 presented in juans 85-98 of the Yogācārabhūmi, and other sources in the Kṣudrakavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya and other Vinaya materials. |
Gunabhadra's Samyuktagama 雜阿含經 T99 , as transmitted and presented in the Taisho, for instance, has been jumbled; further, two juan were lost at some point, and in the present juan 23 and 25, the loss had been made up by interpolating material from an Asokavadana. The wording of these interpolations differs from extant Chinese versions of the Asokavadana, showing that they must have been taken from some alternate, lost source. Hanayama 花山 proposed that this lost source was a text entitled Wuyou wang jing 無憂王經 ascribed to Gunabhadra [for which see Chu sanzang ji ji T2145:55.13a4]. These interpolations must already have been made by the early sixth century, since Sengyou's 僧祐 Shijia pu 釋迦譜 preserves quotations from them, with the identification of the source as the "Samyuktagama", as does the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121. The evidence of the Jing lu yi xiang, moreover, shows that the text had also already become jumbled by this point, since it cites the juan numbers of the disordered version. Further, the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 also gives titles of "excerpted sutras" 抄經, featuring material from these Asokavadana sections, for which it also gives the "Samyuktagama" as the source. Strangely enough, in fact, according to Mizuno, this is in fact the only source from which the Chu sanzang ji ji has material from the Asokavadana, even though the other canonical versions of the text existed by the Liang: four texts are listed, 阿育王獲果報經; 阿育王於佛所生大敬信經; 阿育王供養道場樹經; 阿育王施半阿摩勒果經; T2145:55.25b2-5. Mizuno summarises a history of scholarship by Anesaki 姉崎, Kajio 梶尾, Maeda 前田, Hanayama 花山, Lu Cheng 呂澂 and Yinshun 印順 attempting to restore T99 to its original order, on the basis of comparison with the (anonymous) "alternate" Samyuktagama 別譯雜阿含經 T100, the exposition of “sutras” 契經 presented in juans 85-98 of the Yogacarabhumi, and other sources in the Ksudrakavastu of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya and other Vinaya materials. T0099; 雜阿含經 T99(604); *Asokavadana; no title given in source T99(640); *Asokavadana; no title given in source | ||
|
According to Mizuno, the "alternate translation" of the Saṃyuktāgama 別譯雜阿含經 T100 does not appear in CSZJJ, and there are no citations from it in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121. In the catalogues, the text first appears in Fajing and Yancong, and thence is carried through to KYL. Zhisheng (KYL) noted that there was a reference to the "language of the Qin" in the text, and for that reason assigned it to the list of anonymous texts of the Qin (經中子註有秦言字雖不的知譯人姓名必是三秦代譯今附秦錄, T2154:55.610c24-25; the interlinear note in question reads: 名曰毘𠼝,毘𠼝秦言雄也, T100:2.483b5-6). However, according to Mizuno, Yinshun 印順 regarded Qin as an error for Jin 晉 (265-316/317-420), following the Japanese scholiast Hōchō 法幢 in his 阿毘達磨倶舍論稽古 T2252, who thought that the style of the text was archaic (經中子註有秦言字。雖不的知譯人姓名。必是三秦代譯。今撿譯文體裁。蓋在魏晋之間。全非東晋以下語氣; T2252:64.446a26-28). Kajio 梶尾, by contrast, concluded that the text should be dated to the earlier portion of the "Three Qins" 三秦 (350-394/384-417/385-431), probably around the time of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. Mizuno argues that the translation terminology and style are not consistent with such an early work. Usually, Mizuno states, in Han texts, gāthā would be translated as prose, but here they are called jue 絕 and translated metrically. Further, the opening formula for sūtras is 如是我聞, but before Dao'an, we usually meet overwhelmingly with 聞如是. Mizuno thinks that the text is earlier than Guṇabhadra's 求那跋陀羅 Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 T99, but probably dates after Kumārajīva. |
10-13 |
According to Mizuno, the "alternate translation" of the Samyuktagama 別譯雜阿含經 T100 does not appear in CSZJJ, and there are no citations from it in the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121. In the catalogues, the text first appears in Fajing and Yancong, and thence is carried through to KYL. Zhisheng (KYL) noted that there was a reference to the "language of the Qin" in the text, and for that reason assigned it to the list of anonymous texts of the Qin (經中子註有秦言字雖不的知譯人姓名必是三秦代譯今附秦錄, T2154:55.610c24-25; the interlinear note in question reads: 名曰毘𠼝,毘𠼝秦言雄也, T100:2.483b5-6). However, according to Mizuno, Yinshun 印順 regarded Qin as an error for Jin 晉 (265-316/317-420), following the Japanese scholiast Hocho 法幢 in his 阿毘達磨倶舍論稽古 T2252, who thought that the style of the text was archaic (經中子註有秦言字。雖不的知譯人姓名。必是三秦代譯。今撿譯文體裁。蓋在魏晋之間。全非東晋以下語氣; T2252:64.446a26-28). Kajio 梶尾, by contrast, concluded that the text should be dated to the earlier portion of the "Three Qins" 三秦 (350-394/384-417/385-431), probably around the time of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. Mizuno argues that the translation terminology and style are not consistent with such an early work. Usually, Mizuno states, in Han texts, gatha would be translated as prose, but here they are called jue 絕 and translated metrically. Further, the opening formula for sutras is 如是我聞, but before Dao'an, we usually meet overwhelmingly with 聞如是. Mizuno thinks that the text is earlier than Gunabhadra's 求那跋陀羅 Samyuktagama 雜阿含經 T99, but probably dates after Kumarajiva. T0100; 別譯雜阿含經 |
|
A Wuyou wang jing 無憂王經 is ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in CSZJJ, but identified as lost; T2145:55.13a4. Juan 23 and 25 of the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 T99 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 contain interpolated portions of an Aśokāvadāna which do not match the wording of either extant Chinese version. Maeda 前田 proposed that these materials were interpolated to make up for the loss of two juan from an original 50-juan text of T99. These interpolations must already have been made by the early sixth century, since Sengyou's 僧祐 Shijia pu 釋迦譜 T2040 preserves quotations from them, with the identification of the source as the "Saṃyuktāgama", as does the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121. Further, the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 also gives titles of "excerpted sūtras" 抄經, featuring material from these Aśokāvadāna sections, for which it also gives the "Saṃyuktāgama" as the source. According to Mizuno, Hanayama 花山 proposed that the lost source of these interpolations was Guṇabhadra's Wuyou wang jing. Further, in making this suggestion, Hanayama was the first scholar studying the scrambled state of the present T99 to propose that the interpolations from the Aśokāvadāna were added to the Saṃyuktāgama in China, after the translation of T99, rather than having already been present in an Indic source text. |
A Wuyou wang jing 無憂王經 is ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in CSZJJ, but identified as lost; T2145:55.13a4. Juan 23 and 25 of the Samyuktagama 雜阿含經 T99 ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 contain interpolated portions of an Asokavadana which do not match the wording of either extant Chinese version. Maeda 前田 proposed that these materials were interpolated to make up for the loss of two juan from an original 50-juan text of T99. These interpolations must already have been made by the early sixth century, since Sengyou's 僧祐 Shijia pu 釋迦譜 T2040 preserves quotations from them, with the identification of the source as the "Samyuktagama", as does the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121. Further, the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 also gives titles of "excerpted sutras" 抄經, featuring material from these Asokavadana sections, for which it also gives the "Samyuktagama" as the source. According to Mizuno, Hanayama 花山 proposed that the lost source of these interpolations was Gunabhadra's Wuyou wang jing. Further, in making this suggestion, Hanayama was the first scholar studying the scrambled state of the present T99 to propose that the interpolations from the Asokavadana were added to the Samyuktagama in China, after the translation of T99, rather than having already been present in an Indic source text. Wuyou wang jing 無憂王經 |