Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work, but were wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains one by one why those ascriptions are incorrect. - Sengyou lists a Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing 尸迦羅越六向拝經 as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou notes that the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing is a translation of the same text as the Da liu xiang bai jing 大六向拝經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 法護. - Sengyou saw the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing, but Dao’an did not, since Sengyou’s “Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations” is Sengyou’s own work, and does not rely on Dao’an. (895 of the scriptures included in Sengyou’s new list of anonymous translations were seen by Sengyou, while 675 of them were missing.) - LDSBJ then lists the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing as An Shigao’s work, stating that it was from Dīrghāgama 長阿含, without providing any support for the ascription, - KYL gives the same ascription, citing LDSBJ. - The style and vocabulary of T16 are not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
437-438 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work, but were wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains one by one why those ascriptions are incorrect. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Shijialuoyue liu fang li jing 尸迦羅越六方禮經 (T16) to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing 尸迦羅越六向拝經 as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou notes that the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing is a translation of the same text as the Da liu xiang bai jing 大六向拝經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa 法護. - Sengyou saw the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing, but Dao’an did not, since Sengyou’s “Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations” is Sengyou’s own work, and does not rely on Dao’an. (895 of the scriptures included in Sengyou’s new list of anonymous translations were seen by Sengyou, while 675 of them were missing.) - LDSBJ then lists the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing as An Shigao’s work, stating that it was from Dirghagama 長阿含, without providing any support for the ascription, - KYL gives the same ascription, citing LDSBJ. - The style and vocabulary of T16 are not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0016; 尸迦羅越六方禮經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - Sengyou lists the Poluomenzi ming zhong ainian buli jing in CSZJJ as an extant but anonymous text, stating that it was an excerpt from the Madhyamāgama 抄中阿含. - Dao’an did not know this scripture, but Sengyou saw it. - LDSBJ then ascribes this title to An Shigao, with a note stating that the text was from the Ekottarāgama 増一阿含. - KYL stated that this same Poluomenzi ming zhong ainian buli jing was from the Madhyamāgama, thus correcting LDSBJ’s mistake in that regard, but it still follows LDSBJ’s groundless ascription to An Shigao. - The style, vocabulary, and content of T16 are not that of An Shigao. This is another example of incorrect ascriptions introduced by Fei, which mislead even modern scholars. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
438 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Poluomenzi ming zhong ainian buli jing 婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 (T91) to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists the Poluomenzi ming zhong ainian buli jing in CSZJJ as an extant but anonymous text, stating that it was an excerpt from the Madhyamagama 抄中阿含. - Dao’an did not know this scripture, but Sengyou saw it. - LDSBJ then ascribes this title to An Shigao, with a note stating that the text was from the Ekottaragama 増一阿含. - KYL stated that this same Poluomenzi ming zhong ainian buli jing was from the Madhyamagama, thus correcting LDSBJ’s mistake in that regard, but it still follows LDSBJ’s groundless ascription to An Shigao. - The style, vocabulary, and content of T16 are not that of An Shigao. This is another example of incorrect ascriptions introduced by Fei, which mislead even modern scholars. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0091; 婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Shizhi jushi ba chengren jing 十支居士八城人經 (T92) is one of those 34 scriptures, and Ui rejects the ascription to An Shigao because it was first given by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ, without any supporting evidence. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
438 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Shizhi jushi ba chengren jing 十支居士八城人經 (T92) is one of those 34 scriptures, and Ui rejects the ascription to An Shigao because it was first given by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ, without any supporting evidence. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0092; 十支居士八城人經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Poluomen bi si jing 婆羅門避死經 (T131) to An Shigao are as follows: - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists a Poluomen bi si jing with a note “excerpted from an āgama 抄阿含.” He also lists a Fanzhi bi si jing 梵志避死經, but its relation with the Poluomen bi si jing is not known. - LDSBJ ascribes this title to An Shigao, with a note stating that the text was from the Ekottarāgama 増一阿含. - KYL also ascribes it to An Shigao, adding that the text was from the 23rd fascicle of the Ekottarāgama. - The parallel in Ekottarāgama 23 is available in the Taishō. That part has slightly more details than T131, and uses fanzhi 梵志 instead of poluomen 婆羅門 for brahmin. Ui suspects that those slight differences made some scholars think that there existed a Fanzhi bi si jing independent of the Poluomen bi si jing. Neither LDSBJ nor KYL lists a Fanzhi bi si jing. - T131 contains a verse apparently taken from the Dhammapada 法句經 [i.e. T210?], and Ui claims that the translation does not appear to be in the style of An Shigao. The overall structure of the text also differs from An Shigao’s style. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
438-439 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Poluomen bi si jing 婆羅門避死經 (T131) to An Shigao are as follows: - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists a Poluomen bi si jing with a note “excerpted from an agama 抄阿含.” He also lists a Fanzhi bi si jing 梵志避死經, but its relation with the Poluomen bi si jing is not known. - LDSBJ ascribes this title to An Shigao, with a note stating that the text was from the Ekottaragama 増一阿含. - KYL also ascribes it to An Shigao, adding that the text was from the 23rd fascicle of the Ekottaragama. - The parallel in Ekottaragama 23 is available in the Taisho. That part has slightly more details than T131, and uses fanzhi 梵志 instead of poluomen 婆羅門 for brahmin. Ui suspects that those slight differences made some scholars think that there existed a Fanzhi bi si jing independent of the Poluomen bi si jing. Neither LDSBJ nor KYL lists a Fanzhi bi si jing. - T131 contains a verse apparently taken from the Dhammapada 法句經 [i.e. T210?], and Ui claims that the translation does not appear to be in the style of An Shigao. The overall structure of the text also differs from An Shigao’s style. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0131; 佛說婆羅門避死經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - Sengyou lists an Anabinqi hua qi zi jing 阿那邠祁化七子經 as an anonymous scripture in fascicle 4 of CSZJJ, noting that it was an excerpt from an āgama 阿含. Dao’an did not know this text. - LDSBJ lists an Anabinqi hua qi zi jing 阿那邠祁化七子經 (v.l. 邸 for 祁, Yuan, Ming) as one of An Shigao’s works, noting that the text was from the Ekottarāgama 増一阿含. However, Fei Changfang does not present any evidence for this ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing it to An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao is baseless, and should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
439 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Anadi hua qi zi jing 阿那邸化七子經 (T140) to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists an Anabinqi hua qi zi jing 阿那邠祁化七子經 as an anonymous scripture in fascicle 4 of CSZJJ, noting that it was an excerpt from an agama 阿含. Dao’an did not know this text. - LDSBJ lists an Anabinqi hua qi zi jing 阿那邠祁化七子經 (v.l. 邸 for 祁, Yuan, Ming) as one of An Shigao’s works, noting that the text was from the Ekottaragama 増一阿含. However, Fei Changfang does not present any evidence for this ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing it to An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao is baseless, and should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0140; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 阿那邠邸化七子經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - Sengyou lists the Anan tong xue jing 阿難同學經 as an anonymous scripture in fascicle 4 of CSZJJ, noting that it was an excerpt from an āgama 阿含. Dao’an did not know this text. - LDSBJ lists the same title as one of An Shigao’s works, noting that the text was from the Ekottarāgama 増一阿含, without presenting any evidence for the ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing it to An Shigao. - However, the format of this text is different from the format that An Shigao used, and the content sports features somewhat later than him. Part of the vocabulary of the text is shared with An Shigao, but these commonalities are too weak to establish the ascription to him. Besides, the only known Ekottarāgama translations of An Shigao are those found in parts of the Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 T150A. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao was first given by Fei Changfang, without persuasive evidence, and should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
439 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Anan tong xue jing 阿難同學經 (T149) to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists the Anan tong xue jing 阿難同學經 as an anonymous scripture in fascicle 4 of CSZJJ, noting that it was an excerpt from an agama 阿含. Dao’an did not know this text. - LDSBJ lists the same title as one of An Shigao’s works, noting that the text was from the Ekottaragama 増一阿含, without presenting any evidence for the ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing it to An Shigao. - However, the format of this text is different from the format that An Shigao used, and the content sports features somewhat later than him. Part of the vocabulary of the text is shared with An Shigao, but these commonalities are too weak to establish the ascription to him. Besides, the only known Ekottaragama translations of An Shigao are those found in parts of the Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 T150A. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao was first given by Fei Changfang, without persuasive evidence, and should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0149; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說阿難同學經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - Sengyou lists a Taizi Mupo jing太子慕魄經, but ascribes it to Dharmarakṣa 法護. Sengyou gives no alternate translation of this text. - LDSBJ lists a Taizi Mupo jing太子墓魄經 (v.l. 慕 for 墓, Yuan, Ming) as one of An Shigao’s works. It also lists the Taizi Mupo jing太子墓魄經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, stating that it is the second “issue” of the text 第二出. Ui claims that this “second issue” implies that Fei thought that the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 ascribed An Shigao were alternate translations of the same text. However, Fei did not present any evidence for the ascription to An Shigao. - KYL follows LDSBJ in listing both titles, one ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the other to An Shigao. - (The Taishō includes the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 T168 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕[v.l. 沐 SYM]魄經 T167 ascribed to An Shigao .) - Ui claims that the ascription to An Shigao is incorrect, as it was first given by Fei without any supporting evidence. - Ui then asserts that T167, ascribed to An Shigao, is indeed an alternate translation of T168, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and also of story no. 38 in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152. The text is a jātaka 本生物語. Ui also points out that the character 墓 was used instead of 慕 because of similarity of sound or a transcription mistake. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
439-440 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕魄經 (T167) to An Shigao are as follows [note: in the following, the alternation of 墓 and 慕 in the titles is significant]: - Sengyou lists a Taizi Mupo jing太子慕魄經, but ascribes it to Dharmaraksa 法護. Sengyou gives no alternate translation of this text. - LDSBJ lists a Taizi Mupo jing太子墓魄經 (v.l. 慕 for 墓, Yuan, Ming) as one of An Shigao’s works. It also lists the Taizi Mupo jing太子墓魄經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa, stating that it is the second “issue” of the text 第二出. Ui claims that this “second issue” implies that Fei thought that the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa and the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 ascribed An Shigao were alternate translations of the same text. However, Fei did not present any evidence for the ascription to An Shigao. - KYL follows LDSBJ in listing both titles, one ascribed to Dharmaraksa and the other to An Shigao. - (The Taisho includes the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 T168 ascribed to Dharmaraksa, and the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕[v.l. 沐 SYM]魄經 T167 ascribed to An Shigao .) - Ui claims that the ascription to An Shigao is incorrect, as it was first given by Fei without any supporting evidence. - Ui then asserts that T167, ascribed to An Shigao, is indeed an alternate translation of T168, ascribed to Dharmaraksa, and also of story no. 38 in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152. The text is a jataka 本生物語. Ui also points out that the character 墓 was used instead of 慕 because of similarity of sound or a transcription mistake. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0167; 太子慕魄經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists the Dasheng fangdeng yao hui jing (i.e. he treats it as an anonymous scripture), with the alternate titles Fangdeng hui jing 方等慧經 and Yao hui jing 要慧經. - LDSBJ ascribes the Dasheng fangdeng yao hui jing to An Shigao, without giving any evidence for the ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing the Dasheng fangdeng yao hui jing to An Shigao, adding a note claiming that the text is an alternate translation of the Mile pusa wen ba fa hui 彌勒菩薩問八法會 in the Ratnakūṭa 寶積經 T310. - This text is a typical Mahāyāna scripture, so it would have been an important work if it had been translated by An Shigao. However, this is another baseless ascription first given by Fei, and should therefore be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
440 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Dasheng fangdeng yao hui jing 大乘方等要慧經 (T348) to An Shigao are as follows: - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists the Dasheng fangdeng yao hui jing (i.e. he treats it as an anonymous scripture), with the alternate titles Fangdeng hui jing 方等慧經 and Yao hui jing 要慧經. - LDSBJ ascribes the Dasheng fangdeng yao hui jing to An Shigao, without giving any evidence for the ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing the Dasheng fangdeng yao hui jing to An Shigao, adding a note claiming that the text is an alternate translation of the Mile pusa wen ba fa hui 彌勒菩薩問八法會 in the Ratnakuta 寶積經 T310. - This text is a typical Mahayana scripture, so it would have been an important work if it had been translated by An Shigao. However, this is another baseless ascription first given by Fei, and should therefore be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0348; 佛說大乘方等要慧經; Fangdeng hui jing 方等慧經; Yao hui jing 要慧經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists the Baoji sanmei Wenshushili pusa wen fashen jing (i.e. he treats it as an anonymous scripture), with the alternate title Weiri [ > Weiyue 遺曰] baoji sanmei Wenshushili wen fashen jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經. Dao’an did not know this text. - LDSBJ records the same title, but with the ascription to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any evidence for this ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing the text to An Shigao. Zhisheng uses the title Baoji sanmei Wenshu wen fashen jing 寶積三昧文殊問法身經, and gives a new alternate translation, Ru fajie tixing jing 入法界體性經 ascribed to *Jñānagupta 闍那崛多. Thus, there are no grounds for the ascription to An Shigao, and it should therefore be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
440-441 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Baoji sanmei Wenshushili pusa wen fashen jing 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 (T356) to An Shigao are as follows: - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists the Baoji sanmei Wenshushili pusa wen fashen jing (i.e. he treats it as an anonymous scripture), with the alternate title Weiri [ > Weiyue 遺曰] baoji sanmei Wenshushili wen fashen jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經. Dao’an did not know this text. - LDSBJ records the same title, but with the ascription to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any evidence for this ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing the text to An Shigao. Zhisheng uses the title Baoji sanmei Wenshu wen fashen jing 寶積三昧文殊問法身經, and gives a new alternate translation, Ru fajie tixing jing 入法界體性經 ascribed to *Jnanagupta 闍那崛多. Thus, there are no grounds for the ascription to An Shigao, and it should therefore be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0356; *Vevulla-Ratnakotisamadhi-Manjusripariprccha-dharmadhatu-dharmaparyaya/-sutra.; Weiri [ > Weiyue] baoji sanmei wenshushili wen fashen jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經; Weiri [> Weiyue] baoji sanmei Wenshushili wen fasheng jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經; 佛說寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists a Fo shuo Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 佛説阿難問事佛吉凶經 (T492) (i.e. he treats it as an anonymous scripture), with an alternate title Anan wenshi jing 阿難問事經. - LDSBJ ascribes the text to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any evidence for this ascription, but rather, merely adds a couple of alternate titles. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing the text to An Shigao, while claiming that the Anan fenbie jing 阿難分別經 is an alternate translation of the same text. Thus, there are no grounds for the ascription to An Shigao, and it should therefore be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
441 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 阿難問事佛吉凶經 (T492) to An Shigao are as follows: - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists a Fo shuo Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 佛説阿難問事佛吉凶經 (T492) (i.e. he treats it as an anonymous scripture), with an alternate title Anan wenshi jing 阿難問事經. - LDSBJ ascribes the text to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any evidence for this ascription, but rather, merely adds a couple of alternate titles. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing the text to An Shigao, while claiming that the Anan fenbie jing 阿難分別經 is an alternate translation of the same text. Thus, there are no grounds for the ascription to An Shigao, and it should therefore be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0492; Anan wen shi jing 阿難問事經; 阿難問事佛吉凶經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Jiantuo guowang jing 犍陀國王經 (T506) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Jiantuo wang jing 犍陀王經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ then lists the Jiantuo guowang jing 犍陀國王經 in 1 juan as An Shigao’s work, stating that the character 國 is sometimes omitted. Ui asserts that Fei took this entry from CSZJJ with the addition of the character 國, and ascribed it to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL gives the same ascription, citing LDSBJ. - According to the text of T506, Jiantuo 犍陀 is the name of the king, not the name of a state. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
441 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Jiantuo guowang jing 犍陀國王經 (T506) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Jiantuo wang jing 犍陀王經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ then lists the Jiantuo guowang jing 犍陀國王經 in 1 juan as An Shigao’s work, stating that the character 國 is sometimes omitted. Ui asserts that Fei took this entry from CSZJJ with the addition of the character 國, and ascribed it to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL gives the same ascription, citing LDSBJ. - According to the text of T506, Jiantuo 犍陀 is the name of the king, not the name of a state. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0506; Jiantuo wang jing 犍陀王經; 犍陀國王經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zhangzhe zi aonao san chu jing 長者子懊惱三處經 (T525) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Zhangzhe zi aonao san chu jing in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture with an alternate titleSan chu nao jing 三處惱經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribed the text to An Shigao without providing any support for the ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ, adding another alternate title, Zhangzhe zi yaonao san chu jing 長者子夭惱三處經. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
441 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zhangzhe zi aonao san chu jing 長者子懊惱三處經 (T525) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Zhangzhe zi aonao san chu jing in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture with an alternate titleSan chu nao jing 三處惱經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribed the text to An Shigao without providing any support for the ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ, adding another alternate title, Zhangzhe zi yaonao san chu jing 長者子夭惱三處經. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0525; 佛說長者子懊惱三處經; San chu nao jing 三處惱經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 (T526) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan stating that it is largely the same text 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Ui points out that this Pusa Shi jing is probably the same as the Shi jing 逝經 in 1 juan listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, with the alternate title Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Sengyou actually saw both the Shi tongzi jing and the Pusa Shi jing, and classified them as anonymous. - LDSBJ also lists the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing in 1 juan as An Shigao’s work, without providing any support for the ascription. - LDSBJ then lists a Shi tongzi jing 誓童子經 in 1 juan and ascribes it to Bo Fazu 白法祖 with the alternate orthography Zhi tongzi jing 逝童子,經stating that that it is similar to the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Fei also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan and ascribes it to Zhi Fadu 支法度, with the alternate titles Zhangzhe Shi jing 長者逝經, Zhi jing 制經, Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經, and Shi jing 逝經. - KYL ascribes the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 in 1 juan to An Shigao, with the alternate title Zhi jing 制經, stating that it is the first “issue” 初出 and the same work 同本 as some other texts, including the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. Ui points out that this ascription is based on LDSBJ. - Following LDSBJ again, KYL also lists the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 in 1 juan, ascribed to Bo Fazu with the alternate titles Shi tongzi jing 誓童子經 and Shi jing 逝經, stating that it is the third issue 第三出 and the same work as other texts such as the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing. In addition, Zhisheng lists a Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture of the Wu 呉 period, regarding it as the second issue 第二出, but stating that it was lost in his time. - KYL also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan, ascribed to Zhi Fadu, as the fourth issue 第四出, with the alternate titles Zhangzhe Zhi jing 長者制經, Zhi jing 制經, and Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Although Zhisheng states in this entry that he referred to the Baochang lu 寶唱錄 without mentioning LDSBJ, Ui points out that, judging from the added note including the alternate titles, it is clear that the entry is taken from LDSBJ. - Zhangzhi zi Zhi 長者子制 means the son of a rich man 長者 named Zhi 制. Thus, the ascription of 長者子制經 (T526) to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
441-442 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 (T526) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan stating that it is largely the same text 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Ui points out that this Pusa Shi jing is probably the same as the Shi jing 逝經 in 1 juan listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, with the alternate title Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Sengyou actually saw both the Shi tongzi jing and the Pusa Shi jing, and classified them as anonymous. - LDSBJ also lists the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing in 1 juan as An Shigao’s work, without providing any support for the ascription. - LDSBJ then lists a Shi tongzi jing 誓童子經 in 1 juan and ascribes it to Bo Fazu 白法祖 with the alternate orthography Zhi tongzi jing 逝童子,經stating that that it is similar to the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Fei also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan and ascribes it to Zhi Fadu 支法度, with the alternate titles Zhangzhe Shi jing 長者逝經, Zhi jing 制經, Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經, and Shi jing 逝經. - KYL ascribes the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 in 1 juan to An Shigao, with the alternate title Zhi jing 制經, stating that it is the first “issue” 初出 and the same work 同本 as some other texts, including the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. Ui points out that this ascription is based on LDSBJ. - Following LDSBJ again, KYL also lists the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 in 1 juan, ascribed to Bo Fazu with the alternate titles Shi tongzi jing 誓童子經 and Shi jing 逝經, stating that it is the third issue 第三出 and the same work as other texts such as the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing. In addition, Zhisheng lists a Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture of the Wu 呉 period, regarding it as the second issue 第二出, but stating that it was lost in his time. - KYL also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan, ascribed to Zhi Fadu, as the fourth issue 第四出, with the alternate titles Zhangzhe Zhi jing 長者制經, Zhi jing 制經, and Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Although Zhisheng states in this entry that he referred to the Baochang lu 寶唱錄 without mentioning LDSBJ, Ui points out that, judging from the added note including the alternate titles, it is clear that the entry is taken from LDSBJ. - Zhangzhi zi Zhi 長者子制 means the son of a rich man 長者 named Zhi 制. Thus, the ascription of 長者子制經 (T526) to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0526; 佛說長者子制經; 佛説長者子制經 |
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Modengnü jing 摩鄧女經 (*Mātaṅgī-sūtra, T551) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Modengnü jing 摩鄧女經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou notes that the Modengnü jing is an excerpt, and the same work 同 as the Mozounü jing 摩鄒女經. - LDSBJ then lists the Modengnü jing in 1 juan as An Shigao’s work, without providing any support for the ascription, while presenting the Mozounü jing as an alternate title. Ui points out that this is a mistake, since the Modengnü jing andthe Mozounü jing are two distinct texts. - KYL gives the same ascription to the Modengnü jing in 1 juan, citing LDSBJ, and also presenting Mozounü jing as one of the alternate titles. Thus, KYL, too, made the mistake of regarding the two texts as one, while accepting the groundless ascription to An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
442 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Modengnu jing 摩鄧女經 (*Matangi-sutra, T551) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Modengnu jing 摩鄧女經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou notes that the Modengnu jing is an excerpt, and the same work 同 as the Mozounu jing 摩鄒女經. - LDSBJ then lists the Modengnu jing in 1 juan as An Shigao’s work, without providing any support for the ascription, while presenting the Mozounu jing as an alternate title. Ui points out that this is a mistake, since the Modengnu jing andthe Mozounu jing are two distinct texts. - KYL gives the same ascription to the Modengnu jing in 1 juan, citing LDSBJ, and also presenting Mozounu jing as one of the alternate titles. Thus, KYL, too, made the mistake of regarding the two texts as one, while accepting the groundless ascription to An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0551; 佛說摩鄧女經; 阿難爲蠱道所呪經; *Matangi-sutra, *Sardulakarnavadana; 阿難爲蠱道女惑經; 摩登女經; 阿難爲蠱道呪經 | |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Nainü Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經in 1 juan, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, with an alternate title Nainü jing 奈女經. He also includes a Nainü jing 㮈女經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, stating that it is an excerpt from an āgama. - LDSBJ lists a Nainü Qiyu jing in 1 juan, and ascribes it to An Shigao. - LDSBJ includes a Nainü Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, stating in a note that it was translated in the Tai’an 太安 era (302-303 CE) and has the alternate title Nainü jing 奈女經, referring to Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 as its source. - KYL lists a Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing奈女祇域因縁經 ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate titleNainü jing 奈女經, following LDSBJ. - KYL also lists a Nainü Qiyu jing 㮈(奈)女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, with the alternate title Nainü jing 㮈(奈)女經 - The ascription of the Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) to An Shigao is incorrect and originates in LDSBJ. Fei somehow misunderstood Dharmarakṣa’s work as An Shigao’s. There is no record of this text being ascribed to An Shigao before LDSBJ. Thus, the ascription of T553 to An Shigao should be rejected. Ui further argues that T553 and T554 are the same text, which were taken as two different texts by some process of error or confusion during the transmission of the canon. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Nainü Qiyu jing柰女耆婆經 (T 554) to An Shigao are therefore as follows: - Ui points out the peculiar fact that two almost identical texts are entered in the Taishō, viz., the Nainü Qiyu jing 柰女耆婆經 (T 554) and the Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553), both ascribed incorrectly to An Shigao. CSZJJ records only one Nainü jing 㮈女經 in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and LDSBJ lists only one Nainü Qiyu jing 㮈女祇域經 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao. - Although Ui concedes that it is difficult to know how T553 and T554 came to be treated separately, he points out that they came from different Tripitakas: T553 is the version in S and Y, and T554 is from M (no version of the text is included in K). Thus, the ascription of both T554 and T553 to An Shigao should be rejected. |
443-444 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Nainu Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Nainu Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經in 1 juan, ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護, with an alternate title Nainu jing 奈女經. He also includes a Nainu jing 㮈女經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, stating that it is an excerpt from an agama. - LDSBJ lists a Nainu Qiyu jing in 1 juan, and ascribes it to An Shigao. - LDSBJ includes a Nainu Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmaraksa, stating in a note that it was translated in the Tai’an 太安 era (302-303 CE) and has the alternate title Nainu jing 奈女經, referring to Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 as its source. - KYL lists a Nainu Qiyu yinyuan jing奈女祇域因縁經 ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate titleNainu jing 奈女經, following LDSBJ. - KYL also lists a Nainu Qiyu jing 㮈(奈)女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmaraksa, with the alternate title Nainu jing 㮈(奈)女經 - The ascription of the Nainu Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) to An Shigao is incorrect and originates in LDSBJ. Fei somehow misunderstood Dharmaraksa’s work as An Shigao’s. There is no record of this text being ascribed to An Shigao before LDSBJ. Thus, the ascription of T553 to An Shigao should be rejected. Ui further argues that T553 and T554 are the same text, which were taken as two different texts by some process of error or confusion during the transmission of the canon. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Nainu Qiyu jing柰女耆婆經 (T 554) to An Shigao are therefore as follows: - Ui points out the peculiar fact that two almost identical texts are entered in the Taisho, viz., the Nainu Qiyu jing 柰女耆婆經 (T 554) and the Nainu Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553), both ascribed incorrectly to An Shigao. CSZJJ records only one Nainu jing 㮈女經 in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and LDSBJ lists only one Nainu Qiyu jing 㮈女祇域經 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao. - Although Ui concedes that it is difficult to know how T553 and T554 came to be treated separately, he points out that they came from different Tripitakas: T553 is the version in S and Y, and T554 is from M (no version of the text is included in K). Thus, the ascription of both T554 and T553 to An Shigao should be rejected. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經 T0554; 佛說柰女耆婆經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 (T604) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - A Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing in 1 juan is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Sengyou also regarded this text as anonymous. - LDSBJ includes a Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing ascribed to An Shigao, stating that the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄and CSZJJ are its sources, and that the words chan xing 禪行 are sometimes omitted from the title. Ui checked the Shukusatsu daizōkyō mokuroku 縮刷大蔵經目錄 but found no version of the title that did not have 禪行. Thus, Ui infers that Fei thought wrongly that the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing禪行三十七品經 was the same text as the Sanshiqi pin jing三十七品經 in 1 yuan, already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. - LDSBJ should more valuable and reliable than Baochang in listing those titles, since LDSBJ uses the entries in Dao’an’s catalogue 綜理衆經目録 (via CSZJJ). - KYL lists a Chan xing sanshiqi jing 禪行三十七經 in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, noting that character 品 may be added to the title, and that the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 is the source of ascription. Ui states that he did not find any source from which Zhisheng may have taken the title Chan xing sanshiqi jing (instead of Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing), and that the title Chan xing sanshiqi jing does not make good sense, as sanshiqi pin 三十七品 refers to the thirty-seven bodhipakṣikādharmas 三十七道品. Ui points out that KYL speaks as if it is based upon the Baochang catalogue, but in fact is based on LDSBJ. - The style and content of T604 are clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
444 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 (T604) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - A Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing in 1 juan is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Sengyou also regarded this text as anonymous. - LDSBJ includes a Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing ascribed to An Shigao, stating that the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄and CSZJJ are its sources, and that the words chan xing 禪行 are sometimes omitted from the title. Ui checked the Shukusatsu daizokyo mokuroku 縮刷大蔵經目錄 but found no version of the title that did not have 禪行. Thus, Ui infers that Fei thought wrongly that the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing禪行三十七品經 was the same text as the Sanshiqi pin jing三十七品經 in 1 yuan, already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. - LDSBJ should more valuable and reliable than Baochang in listing those titles, since LDSBJ uses the entries in Dao’an’s catalogue 綜理衆經目録 (via CSZJJ). - KYL lists a Chan xing sanshiqi jing 禪行三十七經 in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, noting that character 品 may be added to the title, and that the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 is the source of ascription. Ui states that he did not find any source from which Zhisheng may have taken the title Chan xing sanshiqi jing (instead of Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing), and that the title Chan xing sanshiqi jing does not make good sense, as sanshiqi pin 三十七品 refers to the thirty-seven bodhipaksikadharmas 三十七道品. Ui points out that KYL speaks as if it is based upon the Baochang catalogue, but in fact is based on LDSBJ. - The style and content of T604 are clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0604; 佛說禪行三十七品經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The佛印三昧經 (T621) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a 佛印三昧經 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribes the 佛印三昧經 to An Shigao without providing any support for this ascription. KYL follows LDSBJ by presenting the same ascription. - The style and content (especially the content) of T621 are clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
444 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The佛印三昧經 (T621) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a 佛印三昧經 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribes the 佛印三昧經 to An Shigao without providing any support for this ascription. KYL follows LDSBJ by presenting the same ascription. - The style and content (especially the content) of T621 are clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0621; 佛說佛印三昧經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 (T 622) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Foyin sanmei jing 佛印三昧經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou notes that the Foyin sanmei jing 佛印三昧經 is largely the same text 大同小異 as the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如來獨證自誓三昧經 (T623) ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 法護. Ui supports this claim by pointing out the substantial part of T622 and T623 are identical, including the verses. - The content of T622 is clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
444 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 (T 622) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Foyin sanmei jing 佛印三昧經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - Sengyou notes that the Foyin sanmei jing 佛印三昧經 is largely the same text 大同小異 as the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如來獨證自誓三昧經 (T623) ascribed to Dharmaraksa 法護. Ui supports this claim by pointing out the substantial part of T622 and T623 are identical, including the verses. - Following LDSBJ, KYL lists the Foyin sanmei jing 佛印三昧經, ascribed incorrectly to An Shigao, without any critical consideration. - The content of T622 is clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0622; 佛說自誓三昧經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Fumu en nan bao jing 父母恩難報經 (T684) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Fumu en nan bao jing in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, noting that it was an excerpt from the Madhyamāgama 抄中阿含. - LDSBJ also lists a Fumu en qin (sic!) bao jing 父母恩勤(v.l. 難 for 勤, Ming)報經 and ascribes it to An Shigao, noting that it was from the Madhyamāgama. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL follows LDSBJ by presenting the same ascription, but Zhisheng notes that he did not find this text in the Madhyamāgama, despite what LDSBJ says. - Ui points out that Zhisheng should have checked CSZJJ as well as Madhyamāgama, because he then would have known that Sengyou classified the Fumu en nan bao jing 父母恩難報經 as anonymous. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
445 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Fumu en nan bao jing 父母恩難報經 (T684) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Fumu en nan bao jing in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, noting that it was an excerpt from the Madhyamagama 抄中阿含. - LDSBJ also lists a Fumu en qin (sic!) bao jing 父母恩勤(v.l. 難 for 勤, Ming)報經 and ascribes it to An Shigao, noting that it was from the Madhyamagama. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL follows LDSBJ by presenting the same ascription, but Zhisheng notes that he did not find this text in the Madhyamagama, despite what LDSBJ says. - Ui points out that Zhisheng should have checked CSZJJ as well as Madhyamagama, because he then would have known that Sengyou classified the Fumu en nan bao jing 父母恩難報經 as anonymous. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0684; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說父母恩難報經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing 温室洗浴衆僧經 (T701) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - In CSZJJ, the title Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing is not listed, but there is a Yu seng gongde jing 浴僧功徳經 in 1 juan, classified as anonymous, and a Wenshi jing 温室經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 法護 with the alternate title Wenshi xijing zhongseng jing 温室洗浄衆僧經. - LDSBJ lists a Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao, and another Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa with the alternate titleWenshi jing 温室經, stating that the record is based on Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄. Ui maintains that the latter text ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is likely to have existed. - KYL also lists a Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ, with the alternate title Wenshi jing 温室經, and a Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing 温室洗浴衆僧經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa with the alternate title Wenshi jing , citing the Nie Daozhen catalogue and CSZJJ as sources. - Ui points out that the style, vocabulary and content of T701 are not that of An Shigao, and infers that T701 is actually the text translated by Dharmarakṣa. - There is a commentary on T701 written by Huijing 慧浄 of the Tang period, which is contained in the Taishō (T2780). T701 is also quoted in some other treatises 論. - However, Ui does not think that T701 was originally produced in India, because it is highly likely that Gautama Buddha used cold water for bathing, not hot water as described in T701. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
445-446 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing 温室洗浴衆僧經 (T701) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - In CSZJJ, the title Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing is not listed, but there is a Yu seng gongde jing 浴僧功徳經 in 1 juan, classified as anonymous, and a Wenshi jing 温室經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmaraksa 法護 with the alternate title Wenshi xijing zhongseng jing 温室洗浄衆僧經. - LDSBJ lists a Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao, and another Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmaraksa with the alternate titleWenshi jing 温室經, stating that the record is based on Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄. Ui maintains that the latter text ascribed to Dharmaraksa is likely to have existed. - KYL also lists a Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ, with the alternate title Wenshi jing 温室經, and a Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing 温室洗浴衆僧經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmaraksa with the alternate title Wenshi jing , citing the Nie Daozhen catalogue and CSZJJ as sources. - Ui points out that the style, vocabulary and content of T701 are not that of An Shigao, and infers that T701 is actually the text translated by Dharmaraksa. - There is a commentary on T701 written by Huijing 慧浄 of the Tang period, which is contained in the Taisho (T2780). T701 is also quoted in some other treatises 論. - However, Ui does not think that T701 was originally produced in India, because it is highly likely that Gautama Buddha used cold water for bathing, not hot water as described in T701. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0701; 佛說溫室洗浴眾僧經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zuiye yingbao jiaohua diyu jing 罪業應報教化地獄經 (T724) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Zuiye baoying jiaohua diyu jing罪業報應教化地獄經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Duyu baoying jing 地獄報應經in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao with the alternate title Zuiye baoying jiaohua diyu jing. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Zuiye yingbao jiaohua diyu jing ~應報~ in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao citing LDSBJ with the alternate title Diyu baoying jing 地獄報應經. - Ui points out that yingbao 應報 is a later way of saying baoying 報應, and it is KYL that introduced yingbao 應報 into the title. - Ui maintains that T724 is clearly not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
446 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Zuiye yingbao jiaohua diyu jing 罪業應報教化地獄經 (T724) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Zuiye baoying jiaohua diyu jing罪業報應教化地獄經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Duyu baoying jing 地獄報應經in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao with the alternate title Zuiye baoying jiaohua diyu jing. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Zuiye yingbao jiaohua diyu jing ~應報~ in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao citing LDSBJ with the alternate title Diyu baoying jing 地獄報應經. - Ui points out that yingbao 應報 is a later way of saying baoying 報應, and it is KYL that introduced yingbao 應報 into the title. - Ui maintains that T724 is clearly not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0724; 佛說罪業應報教化地獄經 |
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經 (T729) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經 as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ presents the Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing as An Shigao’s work. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Ui maintains that T729 is clearly not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
446 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經 (T729) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經 as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ presents the Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing as An Shigao’s work. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Ui maintains that T729 is clearly not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0729; Fenbie pinfu shan'e suoqi jing 分別貧富善惡所起經; Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經; 佛說分別善惡所起經 | |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Chu chu jing 處處經 (T730) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Chu chu jing處處經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Chu chu jing ascribed to An Shigao, without any note as to the source. - KYL also lists the Chu chu jing ascribed to An Shigao citing LDSBJ. - Ui maintains that the Chu chu jing (T730) is a peculiar kind of scripture and clearly not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
446 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Chu chu jing 處處經 (T730) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Chu chu jing處處經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Chu chu jing ascribed to An Shigao, without any note as to the source. - KYL also lists the Chu chu jing ascribed to An Shigao citing LDSBJ. - Ui maintains that the Chu chu jing (T730) is a peculiar kind of scripture and clearly not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0730; 佛說處處經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Shiba nili jing 十八泥犁經 (T731) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Shiba nili jing in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ presents the Shiba diyu jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Shiba nili jing. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL also lists a Shiba nili jing 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao citing LDSBJ with the alternate title Shiba diyu jing. - Ui points out that T731 has a peculiar style as a scripture. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
446-447 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Shiba nili jing 十八泥犁經 (T731) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Shiba nili jing in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ presents the Shiba diyu jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Shiba nili jing. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL also lists a Shiba nili jing 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao citing LDSBJ with the alternate title Shiba diyu jing. - Ui points out that T731 has a peculiar style as a scripture. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0731; 佛說十八泥犁經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Ma yi jing 罵意經 (T732) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Ma yi jing 罵意經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribes the Ma yi jing to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) KYL also lists a Ma yi jing ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Ui points out that T732 has a peculiar style, including the use of the phrase shi yue 師曰 in the latter half. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
447 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Ma yi jing 罵意經 (T732) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Ma yi jing 罵意經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribes the Ma yi jing to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) KYL also lists a Ma yi jing ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Ui points out that T732 has a peculiar style, including the use of the phrase shi yue 師曰 in the latter half. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0732; 佛說罵意經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Jian yi jing 堅意經 (T733) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Jian xin zheng yi jing 堅心政意經 (v.l. 正 for 政, SYM) in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture with the alternate title Jian yi jing 堅意經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Jian xin zheng yi jing 堅心正意經 in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate titles Jian xin jing 堅心經 and Jian yi jing 堅意經. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL also lists a Jian yi jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ, with the alternate titles Jian xing zheng yi jing and Jian xin jing. - Ui claims that the Jian yi jing 堅意經 T733 is a different text from the Jian xin jing 堅心經. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
447 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Jian yi jing 堅意經 (T733) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Jian xin zheng yi jing 堅心政意經 (v.l. 正 for 政, SYM) in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture with the alternate title Jian yi jing 堅意經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Jian xin zheng yi jing 堅心正意經 in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate titles Jian xin jing 堅心經 and Jian yi jing 堅意經. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL also lists a Jian yi jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ, with the alternate titles Jian xing zheng yi jing and Jian xin jing. - Ui claims that the Jian yi jing 堅意經 T733 is a different text from the Jian xin jing 堅心經. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0733; 佛說堅意經; 堅心正意經; 堅心經; Jian yi jing 堅意經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 (T734) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Gui wen Mulian jing in 1 juan, and ascribes it to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Gui wen Mulian jing ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Zhisheng notes that the Gui wen Mulian jing is the first “issue” of the text 初出, and that this is the same text as the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 and some other texts. Ui explains that the anonymous Egui baoying jing is listed in KYL with notes stating that it is the third issue of the text 第三出, has the alternate title Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經, and is the same text as the Gui wen Mulian jing and some other texts. The other text mentioned is the Zazang jing 雜藏經 in 1 juan ascribed to Faxiang 法顯 of the E. Jin. Zhisheng states that there were four translations of this scripture in total, but one of them was lost 前後四譯一譯闕本. Little is known about this lost version. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
447 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 (T734) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Gui wen Mulian jing in 1 juan, and ascribes it to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Gui wen Mulian jing ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Zhisheng notes that the Gui wen Mulian jing is the first “issue” of the text 初出, and that this is the same text as the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 and some other texts. Ui explains that the anonymous Egui baoying jing is listed in KYL with notes stating that it is the third issue of the text 第三出, has the alternate title Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經, and is the same text as the Gui wen Mulian jing and some other texts. The other text mentioned is the Zazang jing 雜藏經 in 1 juan ascribed to Faxiang 法顯 of the E. Jin. Zhisheng states that there were four translations of this scripture in total, but one of them was lost 前後四譯一譯闕本. Little is known about this lost version. - In the Gui wen Mulian jing, each of seventeen demons has a conversation with Maudgalyayana 目連, who subsequently repeats the content of the conversations before the Buddha. The text ends with the formula 一切大會聞佛所説、稽首奉行. It is a scripture with a peculiar style and the content clearly indicates that the text is not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0734; 佛說鬼問目連經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Ba daren jue jing 八大人覺經 (T779) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - No Ba daren jue jing八大人覺經is listed in CSZJJ nor in LDSBJ. - KYL lists a Ba daren jue jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄. Ui states that no more information about this ascription is available since Baochang’s work has been lost. - Fajing includes an anonymous Ba daren jue zhang jing八大人覺章經 in 1 juan. However, it remains unknown if this is the Ba daren jue jing, because the title has the additional character 章 in it. LDSBJ lists the same anonymous Ba daren jue zhang jing八大人覺章經, but also does not provide any further information. - Ui maintains that the eight realizations of great beings ba daren jue 八大人覺 presented in T779 are different from the standard version of this same list. The eight realizations were usually understood in later times to be the eight listed in the Fo yijiao jing 佛遺教經 ascribed to Kumārajīva (佛垂般涅槃略説教誡經, T389): 少欲覺, 知足覺, 遠離覺, 正念覺, 正定覺, 精進覺, 正慧覺, and 不戯論覺. Different from these, the eight in T779 are: 世間無常覺, 多欲為苦覺, 心無厭足覺, 懈怠惰落覺, 愚癡生死覺, 貧苦多怨覺, 五欲過患覺, and 生死熾然苦悩無量覺. - T779 is not well-organized, and the content clearly indicates that the text is not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
447-448 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Ba daren jue jing 八大人覺經 (T779) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - No Ba daren jue jing八大人覺經is listed in CSZJJ nor in LDSBJ. - KYL lists a Ba daren jue jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄. Ui states that no more information about this ascription is available since Baochang’s work has been lost. - Fajing includes an anonymous Ba daren jue zhang jing八大人覺章經 in 1 juan. However, it remains unknown if this is the Ba daren jue jing, because the title has the additional character 章 in it. LDSBJ lists the same anonymous Ba daren jue zhang jing八大人覺章經, but also does not provide any further information. - Ui maintains that the eight realizations of great beings ba daren jue 八大人覺 presented in T779 are different from the standard version of this same list. The eight realizations were usually understood in later times to be the eight listed in the Fo yijiao jing 佛遺教經 ascribed to Kumarajiva (佛垂般涅槃略説教誡經, T389): 少欲覺, 知足覺, 遠離覺, 正念覺, 正定覺, 精進覺, 正慧覺, and 不戯論覺. Different from these, the eight in T779 are: 世間無常覺, 多欲為苦覺, 心無厭足覺, 懈怠惰落覺, 愚癡生死覺, 貧苦多怨覺, 五欲過患覺, and 生死熾然苦悩無量覺. - T779 is not well-organized, and the content clearly indicates that the text is not An Shigao’s work. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0779; 佛說八大人覺經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Chujia yuan jing 出家縁經 (T791) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Chujia yuan jing 出家縁經in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Chujia yinyuan jing出家因縁經 in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL includes a Chujia yuan jing in 1 juan in the list of An Shigao’s works, with the alternate title Chujia yinyuan jing, citing LDSBJ. - The style and content of T791 are clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
448 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Chujia yuan jing 出家縁經 (T791) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Chujia yuan jing 出家縁經in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ lists a Chujia yinyuan jing出家因縁經 in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL includes a Chujia yuan jing in 1 juan in the list of An Shigao’s works, with the alternate title Chujia yinyuan jing, citing LDSBJ. - The style and content of T791 are clearly not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0791; 佛說出家緣經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing 犯戒罪報輕重經 (T1467) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing犯戒罪報輕重經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribes the Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing in 1 juan to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL lists a Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ, with a few alternate titles. - Ui points out that An Shigao did not translate any vinaya scriptures, and hence T1467 is clearly not An Shigao’s work. - Ui mentions that another version the text is appended to of T1467 in the Taishō (see 910 n. 40), which is almost identical with the first version, lacking just six out of the eight verses at the end. Ui conjectures that the second version is probably the one in the Shōgozō manuscripts聖語藏本. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
448-449 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing 犯戒罪報輕重經 (T1467) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing犯戒罪報輕重經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. - LDSBJ ascribes the Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing in 1 juan to An Shigao. (Fei does not provide any support for the ascription.) - KYL lists a Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ, with a few alternate titles. - Ui points out that An Shigao did not translate any vinaya scriptures, and hence T1467 is clearly not An Shigao’s work. - Ui mentions that another version the text is appended to of T1467 in the Taisho (see 910 n. 40), which is almost identical with the first version, lacking just six out of the eight verses at the end. Ui conjectures that the second version is probably the one in the Shogozo manuscripts聖語藏本. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1467; 佛說犯戒罪報輕重經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Da biqiu sanqian weiyi 大比丘三千威儀 (T1470) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Da biqiu weiyi jing大比丘威儀經 in 2 juan, and another Da biqiu weiyi jing 大比丘威儀經 in 2 juan, both as anonymous scriptures, in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (the first is omitted in SYM. - LDSBJ lists a Daseng weiyi jing 大僧威儀經 in 4 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing the Bie lu 別錄. Fei claims that the above two texts in CSZJJ were put together to form this text. - KYL lists a Da biqiu sanqian weiyi jing 大比丘三千威儀經 in 2 juan, ascribed to An Shigao with the alternate title Daseng weiyi jing 大僧威儀經. Zhisheng’s notes on this entry includes the following points: this text is also sometimes in 4 juan 或四巻; according to Fei it is included in the Bie lue 別錄; it is divided into two separate entries in Sengyou’s catalogue, of 2 juan each 按僧祐失譯録中分爲二部, 部各二卷; the two are combined in the Bie lu 別錄; only 2 juan are extant today 今只有二卷; and the other 2 are lost 餘二莫存. - Ui points out that Fajing lists a Da biqiu weiyi jing 大比丘威儀經 in 2 juan, and a Biqiu weiyi jing 比丘威儀經 in 1 juan as an “alternate issue” 異出, indicating that there were two versions of this scripture at the time of Fajing and LDSBJ. - Ui maintains that there only ever was one 2 juan 大比丘威儀經 all along, and hence LDSDBJ and KYL are incorrect in recording the text as 4 juan long in total. The 1 juan Biqiu weiyi jing was lost by the time of KYL. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
448-449 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Da biqiu sanqian weiyi 大比丘三千威儀 (T1470) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Da biqiu weiyi jing大比丘威儀經 in 2 juan, and another Da biqiu weiyi jing 大比丘威儀經 in 2 juan, both as anonymous scriptures, in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (the first is omitted in SYM. - LDSBJ lists a Daseng weiyi jing 大僧威儀經 in 4 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, citing the Bie lu 別錄. Fei claims that the above two texts in CSZJJ were put together to form this text. - KYL lists a Da biqiu sanqian weiyi jing 大比丘三千威儀經 in 2 juan, ascribed to An Shigao with the alternate title Daseng weiyi jing 大僧威儀經. Zhisheng’s notes on this entry includes the following points: this text is also sometimes in 4 juan 或四巻; according to Fei it is included in the Bie lue 別錄; it is divided into two separate entries in Sengyou’s catalogue, of 2 juan each 按僧祐失譯録中分爲二部, 部各二卷; the two are combined in the Bie lu 別錄; only 2 juan are extant today 今只有二卷; and the other 2 are lost 餘二莫存. - Ui points out that Fajing lists a Da biqiu weiyi jing 大比丘威儀經 in 2 juan, and a Biqiu weiyi jing 比丘威儀經 in 1 juan as an “alternate issue” 異出, indicating that there were two versions of this scripture at the time of Fajing and LDSBJ. - Ui maintains that there only ever was one 2 juan 大比丘威儀經 all along, and hence LDSDBJ and KYL are incorrect in recording the text as 4 juan long in total. The 1 juan Biqiu weiyi jing was lost by the time of KYL. - (Although Ui does not present directly his reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Da biqiu sanqian weiyi 大比丘三千威儀 T1470 to An Shigao, he appears to assume that the same reason for rejecting the ascription of the Fanjie zuibao qingzhong jing 犯戒罪報輕重經 T1467 to An Shigao also applies here: An Shigao did not translate any vinaya scriptures.) Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1470; 大比丘三千威儀 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Shelifu huiguo jing 舍利弗悔過經 (T1492) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - No Shelifu huiguo jing 舍利弗悔過經 is listed in CSZJJ. [This is in fact incorrect: it is listed among the extant works of Dharmarakṣa, T2145 [LV] 8b11 --- AI.] There is a Huiguo jing 悔過經 in 1 juan ascribed to Zhi Qian with the alternate title Xu shifang lihui guowen 序十方禮悔過文, but Yui thinks that this may well be a different text from the Shelifu huiguo jing, 舍利弗悔過經 as the alternate title does not appear to match T1492 very well. - LDSBJ lists a Shelifu huiguo jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Huiguo jing. Fei does not provide any further information including evidence for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Shelifu huiguo jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao with the alternate title Huiguo jing, citing LDSBJ. - Ui points out that the addition of the alternate title Huiguo jing 悔過經 in LDSBJ and KYL does not mean that the two catalogues confuse the Huiguo jing ascribed to Zhi Qian with An Shigao’s work, because both LDSBJ and KYL list the Huiguo jing ascribed to Zhi Qian separately from the Shelifu huiguo jing. Thus, Ui claims that the alternate title Huiguo jing was added by Fei for no good reason. - (Although Ui does not present directly his reasons for rejecting the ascription of the 舍利弗悔過經 T1492 to An Shigao, he appears to assume that it should be rejected, as Fei does not show any evidence for it.) Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
449 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Shelifu huiguo jing 舍利弗悔過經 (T1492) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - No Shelifu huiguo jing 舍利弗悔過經 is listed in CSZJJ. [This is in fact incorrect: it is listed among the extant works of Dharmaraksa, T2145 [LV] 8b11 --- AI.] There is a Huiguo jing 悔過經 in 1 juan ascribed to Zhi Qian with the alternate title Xu shifang lihui guowen 序十方禮悔過文, but Yui thinks that this may well be a different text from the Shelifu huiguo jing, 舍利弗悔過經 as the alternate title does not appear to match T1492 very well. - LDSBJ lists a Shelifu huiguo jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Huiguo jing. Fei does not provide any further information including evidence for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Shelifu huiguo jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao with the alternate title Huiguo jing, citing LDSBJ. - Ui points out that the addition of the alternate title Huiguo jing 悔過經 in LDSBJ and KYL does not mean that the two catalogues confuse the Huiguo jing ascribed to Zhi Qian with An Shigao’s work, because both LDSBJ and KYL list the Huiguo jing ascribed to Zhi Qian separately from the Shelifu huiguo jing. Thus, Ui claims that the alternate title Huiguo jing was added by Fei for no good reason. - (Although Ui does not present directly his reasons for rejecting the ascription of the 舍利弗悔過經 T1492 to An Shigao, he appears to assume that it should be rejected, as Fei does not show any evidence for it.) Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1492; 佛說舍利弗悔過經 |
|
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Jiaye jie jing 迦葉結經 (T2027) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Jiaye ji jie jing迦葉集結經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, with a note saying that it is called the Jiaye jie jing迦葉結經 in the Jiu lu 舊錄. There are no other similar titles in CSZJJ. - LDSBJ lists a Jiaye jie jing in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Jiaye jie jing 迦葉結經 in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Ui points out that LDSBJ presents a Jiaye jie ji zhuan jing 迦葉結集傳經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, with an alternate title Jie ji jie jing 結集戒經, citing Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄, and KYL also lists the Jiaye jie ji zhuan jing 迦葉結集傳經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa as a lost scripture. - Ui argues that the Jiaye jie jing ascribed to An Shigao must be the same text as the Jiaye jie ji zhuan jing 迦葉結集傳經 (called the Jiaye ji jie jing 迦葉集結經 in CSZJJ) ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and that Fei must have made a mistake in ascribing the work of Dharmarakṣa to An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). |
449-450 |
In his Yakukyoshi kenkyu 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taisho are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taisho ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. The Jiaye jie jing 迦葉結經 (T2027) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - Sengyou lists a Jiaye ji jie jing迦葉集結經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護, with a note saying that it is called the Jiaye jie jing迦葉結經 in the Jiu lu 舊錄. There are no other similar titles in CSZJJ. - LDSBJ lists a Jiaye jie jing in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any support for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Jiaye jie jing 迦葉結經 in 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao, citing LDSBJ. - Ui points out that LDSBJ presents a Jiaye jie ji zhuan jing 迦葉結集傳經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmaraksa, with an alternate title Jie ji jie jing 結集戒經, citing Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄, and KYL also lists the Jiaye jie ji zhuan jing 迦葉結集傳經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmaraksa as a lost scripture. - Ui argues that the Jiaye jie jing ascribed to An Shigao must be the same text as the Jiaye jie ji zhuan jing 迦葉結集傳經 (called the Jiaye ji jie jing 迦葉集結經 in CSZJJ) ascribed to Dharmaraksa, and that Fei must have made a mistake in ascribing the work of Dharmaraksa to An Shigao. Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taisho due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T2027; 迦葉結經; Jiashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經 |