|
|
Saitō points out that verses appear in two places in the Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 T622. There exists an alternate translation of the same text, the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧經 T623 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Although the prose portions of T622 and T623 are different, the verse parts are identical, so it is clear that the production of the two texts was linked in some way. Saitō maintains that the ascription of T622 to An Shigao is incorrect, because a) An Shigao translated verses in the original texts into prose, while T622 contains verse; and b) An Shigao uses phrases such as 従後縛束説 or 従後説絶 before verses, but T622 uses 以偈讃曰 or 而作頌曰 instead, phrases which were not used before Lokakṣema. Saitō then states that the second verse (15.345a) in T622 has loose end rhymes 通韻, quoting it with the rhyme type of each pair of lines (212-213).
Saitō explains that Chinese Buddhist scriptures generally are written in four-character metre 四言リズム for prose, and in five- or seven-character metre 五言や七言リズム for verse, which reflects Chinese modes of composition and is suited to chanting. For example, most of the translated scriptures produced in the Nanbeichao period are written in such style. However, Saitō points out that An Shigao’s translation works do not have either of those rhythms. Not only that, his works do not translate terms consistently, and sometimes even deviate from grammatically 語法. There is no consideration made for the purposes of chanting. In contrast, the texts incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao are influenced by the Six Dynasties literature and written in the four- or six-character metre 四六体 for prose, while using for verse the five-character style 五言 that became common in the Latter Han period. End rhyming 押韻 is also largely observed in the verse of those texts. Based on those observations, Saitō concludes that the scriptures incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao, e.g., T622, were produced sometime between the Three Kingdoms period (third century) and the production of CSZJJ (at the beginning of the sixth century) (213).
Edit
|
212-213 |
Saito points out that verses appear in two places in the Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 T622. There exists an alternate translation of the same text, the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧經 T623 ascribed to Dharmaraksa. Although the prose portions of T622 and T623 are different, the verse parts are identical, so it is clear that the production of the two texts was linked in some way. Saito maintains that the ascription of T622 to An Shigao is incorrect, because a) An Shigao translated verses in the original texts into prose, while T622 contains verse; and b) An Shigao uses phrases such as 従後縛束説 or 従後説絶 before verses, but T622 uses 以偈讃曰 or 而作頌曰 instead, phrases which were not used before Lokaksema. Saito then states that the second verse (15.345a) in T622 has loose end rhymes 通韻, quoting it with the rhyme type of each pair of lines (212-213).
Saito explains that Chinese Buddhist scriptures generally are written in four-character metre 四言リスム for prose, and in five- or seven-character metre 五言や七言リスム for verse, which reflects Chinese modes of composition and is suited to chanting. For example, most of the translated scriptures produced in the Nanbeichao period are written in such style. However, Saito points out that An Shigao’s translation works do not have either of those rhythms. Not only that, his works do not translate terms consistently, and sometimes even deviate from grammatically 語法. There is no consideration made for the purposes of chanting. In contrast, the texts incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao are influenced by the Six Dynasties literature and written in the four- or six-character metre 四六体 for prose, while using for verse the five-character style 五言 that became common in the Latter Han period. End rhyming 押韻 is also largely observed in the verse of those texts. Based on those observations, Saito concludes that the scriptures incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao, e.g., T622, were produced sometime between the Three Kingdoms period (third century) and the production of CSZJJ (at the beginning of the sixth century) (213). 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 |
|
|
Saitō maintains that T105 is not An Shigao’s work, agreeing with Hayashiya and Zürcher, although due to the brevity of the text it is difficult to compare its vocabulary with other An Shigao’s works. His reasons are the following: the text is written largely on the basis of four-character prosody 四言句, unlike An Shigao’s other works; the term 偈 is used instead of terms An Shigao is known to have used for the same meaning elsewhere, viz., 絶, 縛束説, etc., and; the verse part of the text is in five–character lines, while An Shigao translated verse into prose in his other works.
Edit
|
186-188 |
Saito maintains that T105 is not An Shigao’s work, agreeing with Hayashiya and Zurcher, although due to the brevity of the text it is difficult to compare its vocabulary with other An Shigao’s works. His reasons are the following: the text is written largely on the basis of four-character prosody 四言句, unlike An Shigao’s other works; the term 偈 is used instead of terms An Shigao is known to have used for the same meaning elsewhere, viz., 絶, 縛束説, etc., and; the verse part of the text is in five–character lines, while An Shigao translated verse into prose in his other works. T0105; 五陰譬喻經; 河中大聚沫經 |
|
|
Saitō introduces the views of some scholars about the ascription of T105. Hayashiya argues that it is not An Shigao’s work based on the vocabulary and the organization of the verses, which differs from that of other An Shigao’s works ["An Seikō yaku no Zōagon to Zōichiagon 安世高訳の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 1-1 (1937): 11-50]. Erik Zürcher shares the same view [“Late Han Vernacular Elements in the Earliest Buddhist Translations,” and “A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts.”]. Ui, on the other hand, accepts the ascription to An Shigao, but he also admits that it is odd for this text ascribed to An Shigao to contain verses [Hakuju Ui, Yakukyōshi kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971), 351]. This text was first ascribed to An Shigao in CSZJJ followed by other catalogues.
Saitō maintains that T105 is not An Shigao’s work, agreeing with Hayashiya and Zürcher, although due to the brevity of the text it is difficult to compare its vocabulary with other An Shigao’s works. His reasons are the following: the text is written largely on the basis of four-character prosody 四言句, unlike An Shigao’s other works; the term 偈 is used instead of the ones An Shigao used, viz., 絶, 縛束説, etc., and; the verse part of the text is in five–character lines, while An Shigao translated verses into prose in his other works.
Edit
|
186-188 |
Saito introduces the views of some scholars about the ascription of T105. Hayashiya argues that it is not An Shigao’s work based on the vocabulary and the organization of the verses, which differs from that of other An Shigao’s works ["An Seiko yaku no Zoagon to Zoichiagon 安世高訳の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyo kenkyu 仏教研究 1-1 (1937): 11-50]. Erik Zurcher shares the same view [“Late Han Vernacular Elements in the Earliest Buddhist Translations,” and “A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts.”]. Ui, on the other hand, accepts the ascription to An Shigao, but he also admits that it is odd for this text ascribed to An Shigao to contain verses [Hakuju Ui, Yakukyoshi kenkyu (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971), 351]. This text was first ascribed to An Shigao in CSZJJ followed by other catalogues.
Saito maintains that T105 is not An Shigao’s work, agreeing with Hayashiya and Zurcher, although due to the brevity of the text it is difficult to compare its vocabulary with other An Shigao’s works. His reasons are the following: the text is written largely on the basis of four-character prosody 四言句, unlike An Shigao’s other works; the term 偈 is used instead of the ones An Shigao used, viz., 絶, 縛束説, etc., and; the verse part of the text is in five–character lines, while An Shigao translated verses into prose in his other works. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0105; 五陰譬喻經; 河中大聚沫經 |
|
|
According to Saitō, there exists an alternate translation of the Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing 奈女祇域因縁経 that is also ascribed to An Shigao [viz. T554], differing in the existence/non-existence of the introduction 序分. The translation work was probably actually done in the Nanbeichao period. The verse portion (212) has only eight lines, and is identical with the a verse in the Zhu fudetian jing 諸徳福田経 T683 ascribed toFalu 法立 and Faju 法炬 (16.778b). Saitō suspects that the verse in T553 was taken from the T683 (212).
Edit
|
212 |
According to Saito, there exists an alternate translation of the Nainu qiyu yinyuan jing 奈女祇域因縁経 that is also ascribed to An Shigao [viz. T554], differing in the existence/non-existence of the introduction 序分. The translation work was probably actually done in the Nanbeichao period. The verse portion (212) has only eight lines, and is identical with the a verse in the Zhu fudetian jing 諸徳福田経 T683 ascribed toFalu 法立 and Faju 法炬 (16.778b). Saito suspects that the verse in T553 was taken from the T683 (212). 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 |
|
|
Saitō maintains that the ascription of the Di dao jing 道地経 T607 (*Yogācārabhūmi) to An Shigao is correct, judging from the record in CSZJJ (55.95a) and the tone and vocabulary of the text.
Saitō points out that the terms jue 絶 or jie 偈 (i.e. more usual terms used to identify verse) do not appear in T607 and, as such, the text needs to be compared with an alternate translation, the Xiuxing bendi jing 修行道地経 T606 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, in order to identify verse portions.
Accordingly, Saitō quotes the verse parts of T607 (15.231ab) and T606 (15.182abc) and points out that the two texts share the same sentence and paragraph structure. Hence it is clear that 即説頌曰 and 於是頌曰 in T606 correspond respectively to 従後束説 and 従後縛束説 in T607. 従後 means “in the following” and 縛束, translated also as 束結, probably means “to summarize/to sum up.” Those two together supposed to mean “The Buddha) summarized (the content of the preceding prose) as follows” (182-184).
Saitō then states that the 束 in 従後束説 in T607 is actually written 来 in the original, but this is a transcription error due to the similarity of the shapes of the two characters. Saitō supports this judgement by referring to a clear case of confusion of the two characters, where 従後束結説 (15.232c11) is written 従後来結説 in the three editions (SYM) (184-185).
Saitō also presents several other phrases used in T607 as the introductory phrase to verses 偈頌, e.g., 従後現説 and 従後縛束, and points out that all of them correspond to 於是頌曰 in T606. Thus, Saitō maintains that the prose that follow those expressions in T607 was actually verse in the original. He asserts that, although it was An Shigao’s style to translate verse into prose and terms such as 偈 or 絶 are not used in some of his translation works, it is still easy to see the presence of in them verse (in the originals) based on the use of alternate terms such as 従後縛束説 followed by a summary of the preceding text (185).
Saitō states that An Shigao’s use of different terms – 絶 in T150A and the Saṃyuktāgama 雑阿含経 T101, and 縛束 in T607 – may well be related to the year of production of the texts, if records in LDSBJ are correct . According to that catalogue, T150A was translated in 151 CE and the 道地経 in 167 CE. If this is correct, Saitō claims, An Shigao may have used jue 絶 for gāthā at an early stage of his career, and changed it to 従後縛束説 later. This being so, the year of production of the Saṃyuktāgama T101 can be estimated as sometime prior to that of T607 (185-186).
Edit
|
182-186 |
Saito maintains that the ascription of the Di dao jing 道地経 T607 (*Yogacarabhumi) to An Shigao is correct, judging from the record in CSZJJ (55.95a) and the tone and vocabulary of the text.
Saito points out that the terms jue 絶 or jie 偈 (i.e. more usual terms used to identify verse) do not appear in T607 and, as such, the text needs to be compared with an alternate translation, the Xiuxing bendi jing 修行道地経 T606 ascribed to Dharmaraksa, in order to identify verse portions.
Accordingly, Saito quotes the verse parts of T607 (15.231ab) and T606 (15.182abc) and points out that the two texts share the same sentence and paragraph structure. Hence it is clear that 即説頌曰 and 於是頌曰 in T606 correspond respectively to 従後束説 and 従後縛束説 in T607. 従後 means “in the following” and 縛束, translated also as 束結, probably means “to summarize/to sum up.” Those two together supposed to mean “The Buddha) summarized (the content of the preceding prose) as follows” (182-184).
Saito then states that the 束 in 従後束説 in T607 is actually written 来 in the original, but this is a transcription error due to the similarity of the shapes of the two characters. Saito supports this judgement by referring to a clear case of confusion of the two characters, where 従後束結説 (15.232c11) is written 従後来結説 in the three editions (SYM) (184-185).
Saito also presents several other phrases used in T607 as the introductory phrase to verses 偈頌, e.g., 従後現説 and 従後縛束, and points out that all of them correspond to 於是頌曰 in T606. Thus, Saito maintains that the prose that follow those expressions in T607 was actually verse in the original. He asserts that, although it was An Shigao’s style to translate verse into prose and terms such as 偈 or 絶 are not used in some of his translation works, it is still easy to see the presence of in them verse (in the originals) based on the use of alternate terms such as 従後縛束説 followed by a summary of the preceding text (185).
Saito states that An Shigao’s use of different terms – 絶 in T150A and the Samyuktagama 雑阿含経 T101, and 縛束 in T607 – may well be related to the year of production of the texts, if records in LDSBJ are correct . According to that catalogue, T150A was translated in 151 CE and the 道地経 in 167 CE. If this is correct, Saito claims, An Shigao may have used jue 絶 for gatha at an early stage of his career, and changed it to 従後縛束説 later. This being so, the year of production of the Samyuktagama T101 can be estimated as sometime prior to that of T607 (185-186). T0607; 道地經 |
|
|
According to Saitō, there exist three alternate Chinese translations and a Pali parallel for the *Śṛgālavāda-sūtra. The verses in T16 are different from those in the other four versions with regard to content, and also form — only they have loose end rhymes 通押. In T16, after the normal ending of the text, verses appear, consisting of eighty padas 句 (with eight padas per stanza, viz., ten stanzas in total), following the phrase 仏説唄偈. Saitō cites Akamatsu’s observation that “Mahāyāna” terms such as “six perfections” 六度 and “deva among devas” 天中天are used in the verses of T16, and hence the text must have been modified sometime later than the production of the other four versions. Saitō agrees with Akamatsu to claim that T16 and its verses are not a work of the Latter Han period, and that the verses are clearly not An Shigao’s. Subsequently, Saitō quotes the verses from T16 (1.251c19 - 1.252b01) with the rime 韻目 according to the Guang yun 広韻 and the yunbu 韻部 of the Liu, Song and N. Wei 劉宋北魏 for each pair of lines:
1
T0016_.01.0251c20: 鷄鳴當早起 被衣來下牀 (平陽, 陽)
T0016_.01.0251c21: 澡漱令心淨 兩手奉花香 (平陽, 陽)
T0016_.01.0251c22: 佛尊過諸天 鬼神不能當 (平唐, 陽)
T0016_.01.0251c23: 低頭遶塔寺 叉手禮十方 (平陽, 陽)
2
T0016_.01.0251c24: 賢者不精進 譬如樹無根 (平痕, 魂)
T0016_.01.0251c25: 根斷枝葉落 何時當復連 (平仙, 先)
T0016_.01.0251c26: 採華著日中 能有幾時鮮 (平仙, 先)
T0016_.01.0251c27: 放心自縱意 命過復何言 (平元, 魂)
(…)
(the verses are quoted in full on 209-211)
Both the form and the content 文意change every eight lines to make stanzas. Saitō states that usually, in Chinese verses, the rhyme changes when the subject changes. He judges that these are well-written verses, although the rhyme pattern is not strictly observed in Stanzas 4 and 5. Stanza 6 is the same as one in the Chan yao jing 禅要経 T609, an anonymous scripture supposedly of the Latter Han (211).
Saitō claims that these verses were not in the original text, because they are not included in any of the other versions, and at the end of T16, appear only after the interlocutor (対告衆) [Śṛgāvāda 尸迦羅越] has paid respects to the Buddha and left. Saitō argues that the verses were probably inserted into T16 for ritual purposes, as part of Buddhist chanting/music such as ‘Indic’ hymns 梵唄. He supports this claim by referring to the example of the Changshou wang jing 長寿王経 T161, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, and the Chengyang zhu Fo gongde jing 称揚諸仏功徳経 T434, ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜. In those texts, verses are taken from other texts, are put at the end after the main character in the text leaves. Similarly, T16 also has out-of-context verses at the end, which feature stanzas taken from other texts, e.g., the second one is similar to a verse in the Qi jie Fo ming jing 七階仏名経 by Xinxing 信行 of the “Three Stages” sect 三階経, and one from the “Wuchang jie” 無常偈 in the Wangsheng lizan jie 往生礼賛偈 by Shandao 善導. Saitō argues that those added verses played some role in rituals, e.g., as materials for chanting, which is why verses from other texts are often used (211).
Edit
|
208-211 |
According to Saito, there exist three alternate Chinese translations and a Pali parallel for the *Srgalavada-sutra. The verses in T16 are different from those in the other four versions with regard to content, and also form — only they have loose end rhymes 通押. In T16, after the normal ending of the text, verses appear, consisting of eighty padas 句 (with eight padas per stanza, viz., ten stanzas in total), following the phrase 仏説唄偈. Saito cites Akamatsu’s observation that “Mahayana” terms such as “six perfections” 六度 and “deva among devas” 天中天are used in the verses of T16, and hence the text must have been modified sometime later than the production of the other four versions. Saito agrees with Akamatsu to claim that T16 and its verses are not a work of the Latter Han period, and that the verses are clearly not An Shigao’s. Subsequently, Saito quotes the verses from T16 (1.251c19 - 1.252b01) with the rime 韻目 according to the Guang yun 広韻 and the yunbu 韻部 of the Liu, Song and N. Wei 劉宋北魏 for each pair of lines:
1
T0016_.01.0251c20: 鷄鳴當早起 被衣來下牀 (平陽, 陽)
T0016_.01.0251c21: 澡漱令心淨 兩手奉花香 (平陽, 陽)
T0016_.01.0251c22: 佛尊過諸天 鬼神不能當 (平唐, 陽)
T0016_.01.0251c23: 低頭遶塔寺 叉手禮十方 (平陽, 陽)
2
T0016_.01.0251c24: 賢者不精進 譬如樹無根 (平痕, 魂)
T0016_.01.0251c25: 根斷枝葉落 何時當復連 (平仙, 先)
T0016_.01.0251c26: 採華著日中 能有幾時鮮 (平仙, 先)
T0016_.01.0251c27: 放心自縱意 命過復何言 (平元, 魂)
(...)
(the verses are quoted in full on 209-211)
Both the form and the content 文意change every eight lines to make stanzas. Saito states that usually, in Chinese verses, the rhyme changes when the subject changes. He judges that these are well-written verses, although the rhyme pattern is not strictly observed in Stanzas 4 and 5. Stanza 6 is the same as one in the Chan yao jing 禅要経 T609, an anonymous scripture supposedly of the Latter Han (211).
Saito claims that these verses were not in the original text, because they are not included in any of the other versions, and at the end of T16, appear only after the interlocutor (対告衆) [Srgavada 尸迦羅越] has paid respects to the Buddha and left. Saito argues that the verses were probably inserted into T16 for ritual purposes, as part of Buddhist chanting/music such as ‘Indic’ hymns 梵唄. He supports this claim by referring to the example of the Changshou wang jing 長寿王経 T161, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, and the Chengyang zhu Fo gongde jing 称揚諸仏功徳経 T434, ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜. In those texts, verses are taken from other texts, are put at the end after the main character in the text leaves. Similarly, T16 also has out-of-context verses at the end, which feature stanzas taken from other texts, e.g., the second one is similar to a verse in the Qi jie Fo ming jing 七階仏名経 by Xinxing 信行 of the “Three Stages” sect 三階経, and one from the “Wuchang jie” 無常偈 in the Wangsheng lizan jie 往生礼賛偈 by Shandao 善導. Saito argues that those added verses played some role in rituals, e.g., as materials for chanting, which is why verses from other texts are often used (211). 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 |
|
|
According to Saitō, there exists an alternate translation of the Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing 奈女祇域因縁経 that is also ascribed to An Shigao [viz. T554], differing in the existence/non-existence of the introduction序分. The translation work was probably actually done in the Nanbeichao period. The verse portion (quoted on p212 with the rhyme types) has only eight lines, and is identical with a verse in the Zhu fudetian jing 諸徳福田経 T683 ascribed to Falu 法立 and Faju 法炬 (16.778b). Saitō suspects that the verse in T553 was taken from T683 (212).
Edit
|
212 |
According to Saito, there exists an alternate translation of the Nainu qiyu yinyuan jing 奈女祇域因縁経 that is also ascribed to An Shigao [viz. T554], differing in the existence/non-existence of the introduction序分. The translation work was probably actually done in the Nanbeichao period. The verse portion (quoted on p212 with the rhyme types) has only eight lines, and is identical with a verse in the Zhu fudetian jing 諸徳福田経 T683 ascribed to Falu 法立 and Faju 法炬 (16.778b). Saito suspects that the verse in T553 was taken from T683 (212). 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 |
|
|
Saitō points out that verses appear in two places in the Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 T622. There exists an alternate translation of the same text, the Fulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧經 T623 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Although the prose portions of T622 and T623 are different, the verse parts are identical, so it is clear that the production of the two texts was linked in some way. Saitō maintains that the ascription of T622 to An Shigao is incorrect, because a) An Shigao translated verses in the original texts into prose, while T622 contains verse; and b) An Shigao uses phrases such as 従後縛束説 or 従後説絶 before verses, but T622 uses 以偈讃曰 or 而作頌曰 instead, phrases which were not used before Lokakṣema. Saitō then states that the second verse (15.345a) in T622 has loose end rhymes 通韻, quoting it with the rhyme type of each pair of lines (212-213).
Saitō explains that Chinese Buddhist scriptures generally are written in four-character metre 四言リズム for prose, and in five- or seven-character metre 五言や七言リズム for verse, which reflects Chinese modes of composition and is suited to chanting. For example, most of the translated scriptures produced in the Nanbeichao period are written in such a style. However, Saitō points out that An Shigao’s translation works do not have either of those rhythms. Not only that, his works do not translate terms consistently, and sometimes even deviate from standard grammar. There is no consideration made for the purposes of chanting. In contrast, the texts incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao are influenced by the Six Dynasties literature and written in the four- or six-character metre 四六体 for prose, while using for verse the five-character style 五言 that became common in the Latter Han period. End rhyming 押韻 is also largely observed in the verse of those texts. Based on those observations, Saitō concludes that the scriptures incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao, e.g., T622, were produced sometime between the Three Kingdoms period (third century) and the production of CSZJJ (at the beginning of the sixth century) (213).
Edit
|
212-213 |
Saito points out that verses appear in two places in the Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 T622. There exists an alternate translation of the same text, the Fulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧經 T623 ascribed to Dharmaraksa. Although the prose portions of T622 and T623 are different, the verse parts are identical, so it is clear that the production of the two texts was linked in some way. Saito maintains that the ascription of T622 to An Shigao is incorrect, because a) An Shigao translated verses in the original texts into prose, while T622 contains verse; and b) An Shigao uses phrases such as 従後縛束説 or 従後説絶 before verses, but T622 uses 以偈讃曰 or 而作頌曰 instead, phrases which were not used before Lokaksema. Saito then states that the second verse (15.345a) in T622 has loose end rhymes 通韻, quoting it with the rhyme type of each pair of lines (212-213).
Saito explains that Chinese Buddhist scriptures generally are written in four-character metre 四言リスム for prose, and in five- or seven-character metre 五言や七言リスム for verse, which reflects Chinese modes of composition and is suited to chanting. For example, most of the translated scriptures produced in the Nanbeichao period are written in such a style. However, Saito points out that An Shigao’s translation works do not have either of those rhythms. Not only that, his works do not translate terms consistently, and sometimes even deviate from standard grammar. There is no consideration made for the purposes of chanting. In contrast, the texts incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao are influenced by the Six Dynasties literature and written in the four- or six-character metre 四六体 for prose, while using for verse the five-character style 五言 that became common in the Latter Han period. End rhyming 押韻 is also largely observed in the verse of those texts. Based on those observations, Saito concludes that the scriptures incorrectly ascribed to An Shigao, e.g., T622, were produced sometime between the Three Kingdoms period (third century) and the production of CSZJJ (at the beginning of the sixth century) (213). 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 |
|
|
According to Saitō, it is clear that T630 was produced in the Latter Han period, since its vocabulary is old. It contains verses in the four-character 四言 and five-character 五言 styles.
Subsequently, Saitō quotes the first five-character verse in the text (15.452b4-15.452c4) with the rime 韻目 according to the Guangyun 広韻 and the rime class 韻部 of the Liu, Song and N. Wei 劉宋北魏 for each pair of lines. He points out that all of the rhyming characters 韻字 are in the ping tone 平声 and most of them have a nasal consonant final 陽声韻, viz., end with –n or –ng. Saitō then cites the second five-character verse (15.455b16-15.455b27) to show all of the end rhymes also have a nasal consonant final 陽声韻 (214-215).
Saitō maintains that such a consistent use of the nasal consonant finals 陽声韻 is not coincidental, but the result of a deliberate attempt to achieve a certain effect with the resonating nasal sound. However, he points out that these verses still fall short of true rhyme, and states that he will discuss the matter further in Part II, Chapter 12 of his work (216).
Edit
|
214-216 |
According to Saito, it is clear that T630 was produced in the Latter Han period, since its vocabulary is old. It contains verses in the four-character 四言 and five-character 五言 styles.
Subsequently, Saito quotes the first five-character verse in the text (15.452b4-15.452c4) with the rime 韻目 according to the Guangyun 広韻 and the rime class 韻部 of the Liu, Song and N. Wei 劉宋北魏 for each pair of lines. He points out that all of the rhyming characters 韻字 are in the ping tone 平声 and most of them have a nasal consonant final 陽声韻, viz., end with –n or –ng. Saito then cites the second five-character verse (15.455b16-15.455b27) to show all of the end rhymes also have a nasal consonant final 陽声韻 (214-215).
Saito maintains that such a consistent use of the nasal consonant finals 陽声韻 is not coincidental, but the result of a deliberate attempt to achieve a certain effect with the resonating nasal sound. However, he points out that these verses still fall short of true rhyme, and states that he will discuss the matter further in Part II, Chapter 12 of his work (216).
T0630; 佛說成具光明定意經 |
|
|
There is a view that the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起経 T184 was not translated in the Latter Han period, but in the E. Jin period, following the Taizi ruiying benqi jing 太子瑞應本起經 T185 ascribed to Zhi Qian (Kawano 1991). T184 contains eighteen stanzas of verses with four seven-character lines. Those verses are almost identical with those in T185.
Saitō mentions the view of Zürcher that, although the Xixiu benqi jing T184 and the Zhong benqi jing 中本起經 T196 are the most sophisticated Chinese translations of the Latter Han period, rhymed verse portions of the original text were translated into non-rhymed verses, with stanzas of five, seven, or nine characters. However, Saitō disagrees with Zürcher, pointing out that the verses in T184 do contain rhymes. He demonstrates by quoting the verses (with the rime 韻目 and the rime class 韻部 of the Jin period 晋代の韻部 at the end of each pair of lines) that, among the eighteen stanzas, eight have end rhymes, namely stanzas 2,4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 18 (with some minor adjustments made based on the verses in T185) (216-218). Saitō also points out that stanza 3 and 15, and maybe stanza 1 and 14 should have loose end rhymes 通韻 according to the criteria given in the He yun pu 合韻譜 by Zhou Zumo 周祖謨.
Edit
|
216-218 |
There is a view that the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起経 T184 was not translated in the Latter Han period, but in the E. Jin period, following the Taizi ruiying benqi jing 太子瑞應本起經 T185 ascribed to Zhi Qian (Kawano 1991). T184 contains eighteen stanzas of verses with four seven-character lines. Those verses are almost identical with those in T185.
Saito mentions the view of Zurcher that, although the Xixiu benqi jing T184 and the Zhong benqi jing 中本起經 T196 are the most sophisticated Chinese translations of the Latter Han period, rhymed verse portions of the original text were translated into non-rhymed verses, with stanzas of five, seven, or nine characters. However, Saito disagrees with Zurcher, pointing out that the verses in T184 do contain rhymes. He demonstrates by quoting the verses (with the rime 韻目 and the rime class 韻部 of the Jin period 晋代の韻部 at the end of each pair of lines) that, among the eighteen stanzas, eight have end rhymes, namely stanzas 2,4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 18 (with some minor adjustments made based on the verses in T185) (216-218). Saito also points out that stanza 3 and 15, and maybe stanza 1 and 14 should have loose end rhymes 通韻 according to the criteria given in the He yun pu 合韻譜 by Zhou Zumo 周祖謨. T0184; 修行本起經 |
|
|
Saitō points out that two different dates have been proposed for T196: the Jian’an 建安 era of Emperor Xian 献 of the Latter Han period (CSZJJ), or the Jin period (Enomoto 1994). The addition of Tanguo 曇果 to the ascription (as still carried in the T byline) is first given by LDSBJ, and so could well be incorrect. Verses are found in six places in this text, and Saitō quotes the stanzas that are clearly rhymed from those, with the rime 韻目 of the Guang yun 広韻 and the rime class 韻部 of the Jin period 晋代の韻部 (219-220). He refers to Appendix 1,漢訳仏典有韻偈頌一覧表, of his book, for the other stanzas in the text (. Saitō points out that all four quoted stanzas have the ping tone 平声 rimes according to the Guang yun classification. One of the stanzas is identical with one of those in fascicle 4 of the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩経 T211 (607a)..
Saitō then quotes a line from CSZJJ mentioning that Zhi Yao produced verses for chanting 梵唄 the Zhong benqi jing from 中本起経 and the Wuliangshou jing 無量寿経 (55.97c). The “Jing bai daoshi ji” 経唄導師集 of the CSZJJ records that there existed verses for chanting produced by Zhi Qian 支謙 (55.92ab), and Saitō infers that they are the ones based on T196 and the Wuliangshou jing 無量寿経, although they have been lost. (Saitō also points out that the “Jing bai daoshi ji” lists a “Dishi le ren Banzhe qin ge bai” 帝釋樂人般遮琴歌唄 produced from a Zhong benqi jing 中本起経. However, he argues that this Zhong benqi jing actually refers to the T185 or T184, because T196 does not say anything about Banzhe 般遮, the music deity of 帝釈天.)
Saitō states that although not much is known about Kang Mengxiang, he is mentioned in an appendix to the biography 附伝 of An Xuan 安玄伝 in CSZJJ, and another to the biography of *Lokakṣema in the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧伝 (221-222). Both passages record that Dao’an praised Kang Mengxiang for his translation skills. Saitō conjectures that Dao’an praise was due partly to the care Kang Mengxiang took in rhyming.
Edit
|
218-222 |
Saito points out that two different dates have been proposed for T196: the Jian’an 建安 era of Emperor Xian 献 of the Latter Han period (CSZJJ), or the Jin period (Enomoto 1994). The addition of Tanguo 曇果 to the ascription (as still carried in the T byline) is first given by LDSBJ, and so could well be incorrect. Verses are found in six places in this text, and Saito quotes the stanzas that are clearly rhymed from those, with the rime 韻目 of the Guang yun 広韻 and the rime class 韻部 of the Jin period 晋代の韻部 (219-220). He refers to Appendix 1,漢訳仏典有韻偈頌一覧表, of his book, for the other stanzas in the text (. Saito points out that all four quoted stanzas have the ping tone 平声 rimes according to the Guang yun classification. One of the stanzas is identical with one of those in fascicle 4 of the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩経 T211 (607a)..
Saito then quotes a line from CSZJJ mentioning that Zhi Yao produced verses for chanting 梵唄 the Zhong benqi jing from 中本起経 and the Wuliangshou jing 無量寿経 (55.97c). The “Jing bai daoshi ji” 経唄導師集 of the CSZJJ records that there existed verses for chanting produced by Zhi Qian 支謙 (55.92ab), and Saito infers that they are the ones based on T196 and the Wuliangshou jing 無量寿経, although they have been lost. (Saito also points out that the “Jing bai daoshi ji” lists a “Dishi le ren Banzhe qin ge bai” 帝釋樂人般遮琴歌唄 produced from a Zhong benqi jing 中本起経. However, he argues that this Zhong benqi jing actually refers to the T185 or T184, because T196 does not say anything about Banzhe 般遮, the music deity of 帝釈天.)
Saito states that although not much is known about Kang Mengxiang, he is mentioned in an appendix to the biography 附伝 of An Xuan 安玄伝 in CSZJJ, and another to the biography of *Lokaksema in the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧伝 (221-222). Both passages record that Dao’an praised Kang Mengxiang for his translation skills. Saito conjectures that Dao’an praise was due partly to the care Kang Mengxiang took in rhyming. T0196; 中本起經 |
|
|
Saitō offers a brief summary of biographical record of *Vighna 維祇難 in GSZ and CSZJJ. Then he points out that the Dharmapada 法句経 T210 (ascribed to 維祇難 and others 維祇難等 in the Taishō) contain many verses including rhyming ones, and that both *Vighna and Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎 who worked together with him did not have sufficient knowledge of Chinese to create rhyming verses. Accordingly, Saitō argues that the present T210 was not translated by this pair, but most likely by Zhi Qian, who took part in the translation project.
Edit
|
227-228 |
Saito offers a brief summary of biographical record of *Vighna 維祇難 in GSZ and CSZJJ. Then he points out that the Dharmapada 法句経 T210 (ascribed to 維祇難 and others 維祇難等 in the Taisho) contain many verses including rhyming ones, and that both *Vighna and Zhu Luyan 竺律炎 who worked together with him did not have sufficient knowledge of Chinese to create rhyming verses. Accordingly, Saito argues that the present T210 was not translated by this pair, but most likely by Zhi Qian, who took part in the translation project. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0210; 法句經; Dharmapada |
|
|
According to Saitō, the rhymed verses in the Dharmapada 法句譬喩経 T211 ascribed to Faju and Fali are identical with those in the Dharmapada 法句経 T210, the Zhong benqi jing 中本起経 T196 (152c), and the Weicengyou yinyuan jing 未曾有因縁経 T754 ascribed to Tanjing 曇景 (587a). Saitō maintains that the translators of T211 must have taken the verses from one of those earlier works.
Edit
|
228 |
According to Saito, the rhymed verses in the Dharmapada 法句譬喩経 T211 ascribed to Faju and Fali are identical with those in the Dharmapada 法句経 T210, the Zhong benqi jing 中本起経 T196 (152c), and the Weicengyou yinyuan jing 未曾有因縁経 T754 ascribed to Tanjing 曇景 (587a). Saito maintains that the translators of T211 must have taken the verses from one of those earlier works. T0211; 法句譬喻經 |
|
|
According to Saitō, the anonymous Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 般泥洹經 T6 is said to be the work of either Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa. Saitō claims that the scripture is Zhi Qian’s work, because rhymed verses appear evenly in different parts of the text, which is a characteristic of Zhi Qian’s work, and never seen in Dharmarakṣa; Saitō points out that, in T154 and T186, only some of the verses rhyme
Edit
|
233-234 |
According to Saito, the anonymous Mahaparinirvana-sutra 般泥洹經 T6 is said to be the work of either Zhi Qian or Dharmaraksa. Saito claims that the scripture is Zhi Qian’s work, because rhymed verses appear evenly in different parts of the text, which is a characteristic of Zhi Qian’s work, and never seen in Dharmaraksa; Saito points out that, in T154 and T186, only some of the verses rhyme Zhi Qian 支謙 T0006; 般泥洹經 |
|
|
According to Saitō, the verses in the Moheqieye du pin mu jing 摩訶迦葉度貧母経 T497 and the Zui fu baoying jing 罪福報応経 T747 ascribed to Guṇabhadra indicate a certain care over rhyme (quoted with the rhyme type of each pair of lines 235-236). However, Saitō points out that GSZ records that, when Guṇabhadra arrived in the Guangzhou area in 435 CE, he was not able to give lectures about scriptures as requested due to his lack of Chinese language skills. This being the case, those rhymed verses must have been translated sometime after Guṇabhadra had acquired Chinese language skills, or modified by somebody else who had enough knowledge of both Indian and Chinese languages. Saitō adds that the validity of the ascriptions of T497 and T747 to Guṇabhadra should be re-examined anyway, since both are first provided by LDSBJ.
Edit
|
235-236 |
According to Saito, the verses in the Moheqieye du pin mu jing 摩訶迦葉度貧母経 T497 and the Zui fu baoying jing 罪福報応経 T747 ascribed to Gunabhadra indicate a certain care over rhyme (quoted with the rhyme type of each pair of lines 235-236). However, Saito points out that GSZ records that, when Gunabhadra arrived in the Guangzhou area in 435 CE, he was not able to give lectures about scriptures as requested due to his lack of Chinese language skills. This being the case, those rhymed verses must have been translated sometime after Gunabhadra had acquired Chinese language skills, or modified by somebody else who had enough knowledge of both Indian and Chinese languages. Saito adds that the validity of the ascriptions of T497 and T747 to Gunabhadra should be re-examined anyway, since both are first provided by LDSBJ. T0497; 佛說摩訶迦葉度貧母經 T0747; Wu dao lunzhuan zuifu baoying jing 五道輪轉罪福報應經; 佛說輪轉五道罪福報應經; 佛說罪福報應經 |
|
|
Saitō quotes verses from the *Kusumasaṃcaya-sūtra 称揚諸仏功徳経 T434, to show that the last character of each line rhymes in each of the four four-line stanzas (103a, with the rhyme 韻目 and rhyme class 韻部 of each line, Saitō 236-237). Although the first stanza contains two different rhyme types 韻目 according to the rhyme system at the time of translation (namely, “jan” 雄 and “jun” 殃 at the end of the second and the forth lines respectively), Saitō thinks that probably the translators (Jijiaye 吉迦夜 and Tanyao 曇曜) intended that stanza, too, to have only one rhyme type, because all of the other three stanzas have only one rhyme type, and we only ever see differentiation between “jan” 雄 and “jun” 殃 five times, always in scriptures produced in the Liu-Song 劉宋 period.
Edit
|
236-237 |
Saito quotes verses from the *Kusumasamcaya-sutra 称揚諸仏功徳経 T434, to show that the last character of each line rhymes in each of the four four-line stanzas (103a, with the rhyme 韻目 and rhyme class 韻部 of each line, Saito 236-237). Although the first stanza contains two different rhyme types 韻目 according to the rhyme system at the time of translation (namely, “jan” 雄 and “jun” 殃 at the end of the second and the forth lines respectively), Saito thinks that probably the translators (Jijiaye 吉迦夜 and Tanyao 曇曜) intended that stanza, too, to have only one rhyme type, because all of the other three stanzas have only one rhyme type, and we only ever see differentiation between “jan” 雄 and “jun” 殃 five times, always in scriptures produced in the Liu-Song 劉宋 period. T0434; 佛說稱揚諸佛功德經 |
|
|
Saitō quotes a stanza from the Bai yu jing 百喩経 T209 (Bai ju piyu jing 百句譬喩経) ascribed to Guṇavṛddhi 求那毘地 with the rhyme 韻目 and rhyme group 韻部for each pair of lines (556c, Saitō 237-238), and points out that Guṇavrddhi might well have had acquired enough knowledge of Chinese to make rhymed translations by the time he translated the text in 492 CE, which was more than a decade after he arrived in China. However, according to Saitō, the quoted verse is the only rhymed verse in T209, and all of the other ones that appear in three places in the text do not have rhymes.
Edit
|
237-238 |
Saito quotes a stanza from the Bai yu jing 百喩経 T209 (Bai ju piyu jing 百句譬喩経) ascribed to Gunavrddhi 求那毘地 with the rhyme 韻目 and rhyme group 韻部for each pair of lines (556c, Saito 237-238), and points out that Gunavrddhi might well have had acquired enough knowledge of Chinese to make rhymed translations by the time he translated the text in 492 CE, which was more than a decade after he arrived in China. However, according to Saito, the quoted verse is the only rhymed verse in T209, and all of the other ones that appear in three places in the text do not have rhymes. T0209; 百喻經 |
|
|
Saitō points out that the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經 T572 is a scripture produced early in the history of Chinese scriptural translation since it is recorded in the “Newly collected catalogue of variant translations of scriptures from the Liang region [compiled] by Mr. [Dao]an” 新集安公涼土異経録 in CSZJJ. He quotes verses from two places in the text (944bc and 945ab), and points out the loose rhyming of the 陽 and the 庚 sound groups (which appears in the first passage, with a modification of the end of the sixth line based on the Zhaocheng Jin canon 趙城金蔵 and Fangshan stone canon 房山石経 versions) is often used in scriptures translated in and around the Jin 晋 periods.
Edit
|
238-240 |
Saito points out that the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經 T572 is a scripture produced early in the history of Chinese scriptural translation since it is recorded in the “Newly collected catalogue of variant translations of scriptures from the Liang region [compiled] by Mr. [Dao]an” 新集安公涼土異経録 in CSZJJ. He quotes verses from two places in the text (944bc and 945ab), and points out the loose rhyming of the 陽 and the 庚 sound groups (which appears in the first passage, with a modification of the end of the sixth line based on the Zhaocheng Jin canon 趙城金蔵 and Fangshan stone canon 房山石経 versions) is often used in scriptures translated in and around the Jin 晋 periods. T0572; 佛說長者法志妻經 |
|
|
Saitō points out that the Zhangzhe Nüantizhe shizi hou liaoyi jing 長者女菴提遮師子吼了義經 T580 was listed first in KYL, and quotes all the rhymed/loosely rhymed verses in the text (963ab, 963c, and 964c). He claims that some of the rhymes can be recovered by referring to different versions, such as the substantial part of the text found in the library cave at Dunhuang 敦煌石室, and the one in the Shōsōin Shōgozō 正倉院聖語蔵 (under the name of 年御願経).
Edit
|
240-242 |
Saito points out that the Zhangzhe Nuantizhe shizi hou liaoyi jing 長者女菴提遮師子吼了義經 T580 was listed first in KYL, and quotes all the rhymed/loosely rhymed verses in the text (963ab, 963c, and 964c). He claims that some of the rhymes can be recovered by referring to different versions, such as the substantial part of the text found in the library cave at Dunhuang 敦煌石室, and the one in the Shosoin Shogozo 正倉院聖語蔵 (under the name of 年御願経). T0580; 佛說長者女菴提遮師子吼了義經 |
|
|
Saitō quotes a stanza from the Antantamukha[sādhaka]dhāraṇī 一向出生菩薩經 T1017 (700c) and maintains that Jñānagupta’s intention to make the verse (loosely) rhyme can be clearly seen, as all the even-number lines in its first half end with a nasal sound (n, ng, or m), and his care for rhyme is even more visible in the second half.
Edit
|
242-243 |
Saito quotes a stanza from the Antantamukha[sadhaka]dharani 一向出生菩薩經 T1017 (700c) and maintains that Jnanagupta’s intention to make the verse (loosely) rhyme can be clearly seen, as all the even-number lines in its first half end with a nasal sound (n, ng, or m), and his care for rhyme is even more visible in the second half. T1017; 佛說一向出生菩薩經 |
|
|
Saitō points out that the verse in T182 is most likely to have been produced by Zhi Qian, since there was a lost 鹿子経 ascribed to Zhi Qian, which KYL records as being completely identical with the 鹿母経.
Edit
|
333 |
Saito points out that the verse in T182 is most likely to have been produced by Zhi Qian, since there was a lost 鹿子経 ascribed to Zhi Qian, which KYL records as being completely identical with the 鹿母経. T0182; 鹿母經 |
|
|
As part of a broader examination of rhyming verse in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, the general thrust of which is to argue that such rhymed verse is largely atypical of Dharmarakṣa, Saitō states that T623 has close similarities to 自誓三昧經 T622 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高. As such, he urges, the ascription of the rhymed verse in these texts cannot be determined until we clarify their chronological order. [In other words, Saitō seems to be saying that we should consider the possibility that the rhymed verse in T623 somehow derives from T622 --- whether or not the ascription of T622 to An Shigao is to be accepted. --- MR]
Edit
|
333 |
As part of a broader examination of rhyming verse in the Dharmaraksa corpus, the general thrust of which is to argue that such rhymed verse is largely atypical of Dharmaraksa, Saito states that T623 has close similarities to 自誓三昧經 T622 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高. As such, he urges, the ascription of the rhymed verse in these texts cannot be determined until we clarify their chronological order. [In other words, Saito seems to be saying that we should consider the possibility that the rhymed verse in T623 somehow derives from T622 --- whether or not the ascription of T622 to An Shigao is to be accepted. --- MR] T0623; 佛說如來獨證自誓三昧經 |
|
|
Saitō argues that the received attributions of T557 and T558 should be reversed. In other words, T557 in in fact by Dharmarakṣa, and T558 by Zhi Qian.
Saitō’s main evidence in support of this claim is that T558 contains rhyme (some of it loose) throughout its second half. (T557, by contrast, is written entirely in prose.) In addition, the first half of T558, which is in fact in prose, nonetheless contains some scattered rhyme (325-329). Recognition of the rhyme in the second half of the text especially, however, has been hindered by several factors. First, several extant editions present this portion of the text in prose format. Second, the total number of padas is odd, and at 911c, the rhymes also occur at the end of the odd-numbered padas, rather than rhymes appearing at the end of even-numbered padas in a text with an even number of total padas, as we would normally expect. Saitō explains these peculiarities of the text by hypothesising that one to three padas have been lost. Third, the verse portion continues the narrative begun in the preceding prose, rather than recapitulating the same content as the prose portion, as would be more usual. This factor may have led later copyists and editors to overlook the switch to verse. Fourth, many of the rhymes are loose, which is to say, the rhyming pairs belong strictly to different rime classes, according to the formal rules of versification. Saitō argues that they should nonetheless be interpreted as evidence of a conscious attempt to rhyme on the part of the authors of the text. He bases this part of his argument upon comparison with a limited number of instances in which roughly contemporary texts, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, also rhyme words belonging to the same pairs of rime classes (320-321). In some places, he also suggests emendations to the text in order to argue that the text originally rhymed, but was corrupted in transmission.
There still remains a small number of padas in the second part of T558 that genuinely do not rhyme—six out of thirty-three end-padas—but Saitō claims that such cases are also seen in other texts, and the overall ratio of rhyming verses is still too high to be a product of chance. In further support of his claim that the verses are intended to rhyme, he also adduces the distribution of level 平声 to non-level tones仄声 (321-322). Saitō also argues, particularly in relation to the rhymes in the first, prose portion of the text, that it would have been too difficult to obey all the rules of rhyming verse in the context of Buddhist scriptural translation, so that some deviation from those rules should be tolerated, without it excluding the hypothesis that the authors intended to produce at least part of the impression of rhyme.
Saitō argues further, on the basis of comparison with other works in their corpora, that rhymed verse, while not completely unknown in Dharmarakṣa, is far more characteristic of Zhi Qian. He also adduces information in the catalogues that shows that where bibliographers gave information about the length of each text, they ascribed a text matching T557 in length to Dharmarakṣa, and another matching T558 in length to Zhi Qian (337-340). The texts he examines by Dharmarakṣa are the Sheng jing 生経 T154, the Lu mu jing 鹿母経 T182a/b, the Lalitavistara 普曜経 T186, and the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧経 T623 (333-336). He argues that most of the rhymed verses in those texts were probably borrowed from other Chinese texts, leaving only a very small proportion of original, deliberately rhymed verses that were probably actually created by Dharmarakṣa’s team.
Edit
|
312-352 |
Saito argues that the received attributions of T557 and T558 should be reversed. In other words, T557 in in fact by Dharmaraksa, and T558 by Zhi Qian.
Saito’s main evidence in support of this claim is that T558 contains rhyme (some of it loose) throughout its second half. (T557, by contrast, is written entirely in prose.) In addition, the first half of T558, which is in fact in prose, nonetheless contains some scattered rhyme (325-329). Recognition of the rhyme in the second half of the text especially, however, has been hindered by several factors. First, several extant editions present this portion of the text in prose format. Second, the total number of padas is odd, and at 911c, the rhymes also occur at the end of the odd-numbered padas, rather than rhymes appearing at the end of even-numbered padas in a text with an even number of total padas, as we would normally expect. Saito explains these peculiarities of the text by hypothesising that one to three padas have been lost. Third, the verse portion continues the narrative begun in the preceding prose, rather than recapitulating the same content as the prose portion, as would be more usual. This factor may have led later copyists and editors to overlook the switch to verse. Fourth, many of the rhymes are loose, which is to say, the rhyming pairs belong strictly to different rime classes, according to the formal rules of versification. Saito argues that they should nonetheless be interpreted as evidence of a conscious attempt to rhyme on the part of the authors of the text. He bases this part of his argument upon comparison with a limited number of instances in which roughly contemporary texts, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, also rhyme words belonging to the same pairs of rime classes (320-321). In some places, he also suggests emendations to the text in order to argue that the text originally rhymed, but was corrupted in transmission.
There still remains a small number of padas in the second part of T558 that genuinely do not rhyme—six out of thirty-three end-padas—but Saito claims that such cases are also seen in other texts, and the overall ratio of rhyming verses is still too high to be a product of chance. In further support of his claim that the verses are intended to rhyme, he also adduces the distribution of level 平声 to non-level tones仄声 (321-322). Saito also argues, particularly in relation to the rhymes in the first, prose portion of the text, that it would have been too difficult to obey all the rules of rhyming verse in the context of Buddhist scriptural translation, so that some deviation from those rules should be tolerated, without it excluding the hypothesis that the authors intended to produce at least part of the impression of rhyme.
Saito argues further, on the basis of comparison with other works in their corpora, that rhymed verse, while not completely unknown in Dharmaraksa, is far more characteristic of Zhi Qian. He also adduces information in the catalogues that shows that where bibliographers gave information about the length of each text, they ascribed a text matching T557 in length to Dharmaraksa, and another matching T558 in length to Zhi Qian (337-340). The texts he examines by Dharmaraksa are the Sheng jing 生経 T154, the Lu mu jing 鹿母経 T182a/b, the Lalitavistara 普曜経 T186, and the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧経 T623 (333-336). He argues that most of the rhymed verses in those texts were probably borrowed from other Chinese texts, leaving only a very small proportion of original, deliberately rhymed verses that were probably actually created by Dharmaraksa’s team.
Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0557; 佛說龍施女經 |
|
|
Saitō argues that the received attributions of T557 and T558 should be reversed. In other words, T557 in in fact by Dharmarakṣa, and T558 by Zhi Qian.
Saitō’s main evidence in support of this claim is that T558 contains rhyme (some of it loose) throughout its second half. (T557, by contrast, is written entirely in prose.) In addition, the first half of T558, which is in fact in prose, nonetheless contains some scattered rhyme (325-329). Recognition of the rhyme in the second half of the text especially, however, has been hindered by several factors. First, several extant editions present this portion of the text in prose format. Second, the total number of padas is odd, and at 911c, the rhymes also occur at the end of the odd-numbered padas, rather than rhymes appearing at the end of even-numbered padas in a text with an even number of total padas, as we would normally expect. Saitō explains these peculiarities of the text by hypothesising that one or three padas have been lost. Third, the verse portion continues the narrative begun in the preceding prose, rather than recapitulating the same content as the prose portion, as would be more usual. This factor may have led later copyists and editors to overlook the switch to verse. Fourth, many of the rhymes are loose, which is to say, the rhyming pairs belong strictly to different rime classes, according to the formal rules of versification. Saitō argues that they should nonetheless be interpreted as evidence of a conscious attempt to rhyme on the part of the authors of the text. He bases this part of his argument upon comparison with a limited number of instances in which roughly contemporary texts, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, also featuring rhyme words not belonging to the same pairs of rime classes (320-321). In some places, he also suggests emendations to the text in order to argue that the text originally rhymed, but was corrupted in transmission.
There still remains a small number of padas in the second part of T558 that genuinely do not rhyme—six out of thirty-three end-padas—but Saitō claims that such cases are also seen in other texts, and the overall ratio of rhyming verses is still too high to be a product of chance. In further support of his claim that the verses are intended to rhyme, he also adduces the distribution of level 平声 to non-level tones仄声 (321-322). Saitō also argues, particularly in relation to the rhymes in the first, prose portion of the text, that it would have been too difficult to obey all the rules of rhyming verse in the context of Buddhist scriptural translation, so that some deviation from those rules should be tolerated, without it excluding the hypothesis that the authors intended to produce at least part of the impression of rhyme.
Saitō argues further, on the basis of comparison with other works in their corpora, that rhymed verse, while not completely unknown in Dharmarakṣa, is far more characteristic of Zhi Qian. He also adduces information in the catalogues that shows that where bibliographers gave information about the length of each text, they ascribed a text matching T557 in length to Dharmarakṣa, and another matching T558 in length to Zhi Qian (337-340). The texts he examines by Dharmarakṣa are the Sheng jing 生経 T154, the Lu mu jing 鹿母経 T182a/b, the Lalitavistara 普曜経 T186, and the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧経 T623 (333-336). He argues that most of the rhymed verses in those texts were probably borrowed from other Chinese texts, leaving only a very small proportion of original, deliberately rhymed verses that were probably actually created by Dharmarakṣa’s team.
Edit
|
312-352 |
Saito argues that the received attributions of T557 and T558 should be reversed. In other words, T557 in in fact by Dharmaraksa, and T558 by Zhi Qian.
Saito’s main evidence in support of this claim is that T558 contains rhyme (some of it loose) throughout its second half. (T557, by contrast, is written entirely in prose.) In addition, the first half of T558, which is in fact in prose, nonetheless contains some scattered rhyme (325-329). Recognition of the rhyme in the second half of the text especially, however, has been hindered by several factors. First, several extant editions present this portion of the text in prose format. Second, the total number of padas is odd, and at 911c, the rhymes also occur at the end of the odd-numbered padas, rather than rhymes appearing at the end of even-numbered padas in a text with an even number of total padas, as we would normally expect. Saito explains these peculiarities of the text by hypothesising that one or three padas have been lost. Third, the verse portion continues the narrative begun in the preceding prose, rather than recapitulating the same content as the prose portion, as would be more usual. This factor may have led later copyists and editors to overlook the switch to verse. Fourth, many of the rhymes are loose, which is to say, the rhyming pairs belong strictly to different rime classes, according to the formal rules of versification. Saito argues that they should nonetheless be interpreted as evidence of a conscious attempt to rhyme on the part of the authors of the text. He bases this part of his argument upon comparison with a limited number of instances in which roughly contemporary texts, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, also featuring rhyme words not belonging to the same pairs of rime classes (320-321). In some places, he also suggests emendations to the text in order to argue that the text originally rhymed, but was corrupted in transmission.
There still remains a small number of padas in the second part of T558 that genuinely do not rhyme—six out of thirty-three end-padas—but Saito claims that such cases are also seen in other texts, and the overall ratio of rhyming verses is still too high to be a product of chance. In further support of his claim that the verses are intended to rhyme, he also adduces the distribution of level 平声 to non-level tones仄声 (321-322). Saito also argues, particularly in relation to the rhymes in the first, prose portion of the text, that it would have been too difficult to obey all the rules of rhyming verse in the context of Buddhist scriptural translation, so that some deviation from those rules should be tolerated, without it excluding the hypothesis that the authors intended to produce at least part of the impression of rhyme.
Saito argues further, on the basis of comparison with other works in their corpora, that rhymed verse, while not completely unknown in Dharmaraksa, is far more characteristic of Zhi Qian. He also adduces information in the catalogues that shows that where bibliographers gave information about the length of each text, they ascribed a text matching T557 in length to Dharmaraksa, and another matching T558 in length to Zhi Qian (337-340). The texts he examines by Dharmaraksa are the Sheng jing 生経 T154, the Lu mu jing 鹿母経 T182a/b, the Lalitavistara 普曜経 T186, and the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧経 T623 (333-336). He argues that most of the rhymed verses in those texts were probably borrowed from other Chinese texts, leaving only a very small proportion of original, deliberately rhymed verses that were probably actually created by Dharmaraksa’s team. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0558; 佛說龍施菩薩本起經; 龍施本經 |
|
|
As part of a broader examination of rhyming verse in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, the general thrust of which is to argue that such rhymed verse is largely atypical of Dharmarakṣa, Saitō argues that the ratio of rhymed lines in the verses in T154 is so small (less than one-tenth of the entire eight hundred padas 句) that they should be regarded as accidentally rhymed. However, Saitō claims that at least several stanzas at 87bc (quoted on page 334-335) must have been made end-rhymed intentionally by Dharmarakṣa and his translation team, since they are perfectly end-rhymed and no similar/identical stanzas have been found in other scriptures.
Edit
|
333-335 |
As part of a broader examination of rhyming verse in the Dharmaraksa corpus, the general thrust of which is to argue that such rhymed verse is largely atypical of Dharmaraksa, Saito argues that the ratio of rhymed lines in the verses in T154 is so small (less than one-tenth of the entire eight hundred padas 句) that they should be regarded as accidentally rhymed. However, Saito claims that at least several stanzas at 87bc (quoted on page 334-335) must have been made end-rhymed intentionally by Dharmaraksa and his translation team, since they are perfectly end-rhymed and no similar/identical stanzas have been found in other scriptures. T0154; 生經 T154(24); Fo shuo guowang wu ren jing 佛說國王五人經 |
|
|
Edit
|
206-248 |
Qi nu guan jing 七女觀經 |
|
|
Saitō notes that T142b and T143 are part of a larger group of five related texts in T, the others being T141, T142a and EĀ 51.9 . He also notes that a partial parallel is known in Pali, the Bhariyā-sutta AN 7.63. However, he argues that T142b and T143 are particularly closely related, at least in their use of rhyme, and more generally, in the portion of the text in which the Buddha expounds upon virtuous and vicious women. This relation is exemplified by the rare phrase 萬分之後 (otherwise only in T154, T729; the phrase 何益萬分, which Saitō sees as related, appears in T520, T556 [also T784 --- MR]).
Dao'an lists as anonymous a title 玉耶女經／玉耶經, corresponding to T142(a or b) or T143. It is not until KYL that a date was suggested for the work. The ascription of T143 to Tanwulan is problematic, because CSZJJ only ascribes two texts to him, but LDSBJ suddenly ascribes around 110 works.
There are two rhymed portions in these texts, both in padas of four syllables. 1) The Buddha explains seven types of women 七輩婦; 2) the Buddha categorises these seven types into good and bad 善婦悪婦. In Pali AN 7.63, (1) is rhymed, but (2) is absent, and may have been added to the Chinese by the translators.
In (1), the explanation of four of seven categories is end-rhymed. Saitō suggests that this material was originally presented as verse, but got reformatted as prose through an error of transmission.
In (2), Saitō found loose rhymes by dividing a number of eight-character lines in the texts into two four-character lines. The rhyme is better here than in (1).
The rhyme in T142b is better than in T143. On this basis, Saitō suggets that T142b may be later. However, T143 (but not T142b) quotes the Zuo zhuan 春秋左氏伝 (on this point, Saitō cites 一柳和成), which may mean that T143 was created on the basis of some other pre-existing text, in which case T142b is a natural candidate. Saitō concludes that the chonological relation between the two texts is undetermined.
Saitō states that rhyme embedded in prose in this manner seems to be rare, and aside from the present two texts, he has only otherwise discovered it in T588.
Saitō suggests that end-rhymes may have been characteristic of instructional literature for women, and that this may have been a device to suit the literature to memorization and recitation. In discussing this possibility, he compares T142b/T143 to secular literature, and notes similarities with the Nü cheng 女誠 by Cao Dajia 曹大家 (Ban Zhao 班昭) of the Latter Han , and analyses rhyme in a number of other 女訓書 (380-384) and the Analects for Women (Nü lunyu) 女論語 of the Tang. He also notes that in 30 scriptures in the Taishō in which the Buddha speaks to a woman or the main topic is women, five have rhymed verse: T553 ("An Shigao"), T557 ("Zhi Qian", as cited in JYLX T2121), T558 ("Dharmarakṣa"), T572 (anon., Liang 涼), and T580 (anon., Liang 涼).
Saitō also suggests that of these texts, T143 was most commonly known under the Tang period, as it was quoted in Huizhao's 慧沼 Quan fa putixin ji 勸發菩提心集 T. 1862 , and some terms in it are glossed in works like the Yiqie jing yin yi.
Edit
|
353-393 |
Saito notes that T142b and T143 are part of a larger group of five related texts in T, the others being T141, T142a and EA 51.9 . He also notes that a partial parallel is known in Pali, the Bhariya-sutta AN 7.63. However, he argues that T142b and T143 are particularly closely related, at least in their use of rhyme, and more generally, in the portion of the text in which the Buddha expounds upon virtuous and vicious women. This relation is exemplified by the rare phrase 萬分之後 (otherwise only in T154, T729; the phrase 何益萬分, which Saito sees as related, appears in T520, T556 [also T784 --- MR]).
Dao'an lists as anonymous a title 玉耶女經/玉耶經, corresponding to T142(a or b) or T143. It is not until KYL that a date was suggested for the work. The ascription of T143 to Tanwulan is problematic, because CSZJJ only ascribes two texts to him, but LDSBJ suddenly ascribes around 110 works.
There are two rhymed portions in these texts, both in padas of four syllables. 1) The Buddha explains seven types of women 七輩婦; 2) the Buddha categorises these seven types into good and bad 善婦悪婦. In Pali AN 7.63, (1) is rhymed, but (2) is absent, and may have been added to the Chinese by the translators.
In (1), the explanation of four of seven categories is end-rhymed. Saito suggests that this material was originally presented as verse, but got reformatted as prose through an error of transmission.
In (2), Saito found loose rhymes by dividing a number of eight-character lines in the texts into two four-character lines. The rhyme is better here than in (1).
The rhyme in T142b is better than in T143. On this basis, Saito suggets that T142b may be later. However, T143 (but not T142b) quotes the Zuo zhuan 春秋左氏伝 (on this point, Saito cites 一柳和成), which may mean that T143 was created on the basis of some other pre-existing text, in which case T142b is a natural candidate. Saito concludes that the chonological relation between the two texts is undetermined.
Saito states that rhyme embedded in prose in this manner seems to be rare, and aside from the present two texts, he has only otherwise discovered it in T588.
Saito suggests that end-rhymes may have been characteristic of instructional literature for women, and that this may have been a device to suit the literature to memorization and recitation. In discussing this possibility, he compares T142b/T143 to secular literature, and notes similarities with the Nu cheng 女誠 by Cao Dajia 曹大家 (Ban Zhao 班昭) of the Latter Han , and analyses rhyme in a number of other 女訓書 (380-384) and the Analects for Women (Nu lunyu) 女論語 of the Tang. He also notes that in 30 scriptures in the Taisho in which the Buddha speaks to a woman or the main topic is women, five have rhymed verse: T553 ("An Shigao"), T557 ("Zhi Qian", as cited in JYLX T2121), T558 ("Dharmaraksa"), T572 (anon., Liang 涼), and T580 (anon., Liang 涼).
Saito also suggests that of these texts, T143 was most commonly known under the Tang period, as it was quoted in Huizhao's 慧沼 Quan fa putixin ji 勸發菩提心集 T. 1862 , and some terms in it are glossed in works like the Yiqie jing yin yi. T0142; 玉耶女經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 T0143; 玉耶經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 |
|
|
As part of a broader examination of rhyming verse in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, the general thrust of which is to argue that such rhymed verse is largely atypical of Dharmarakṣa, Saitō points out that among the rhymed/loosely rhymed verses in T186, only one portion is unique to this text, and hence should have been produced by Dharmarakṣa and his group without relying on some existing verse. Saitō quotes that portion (T185 [III] 512c) and clarifies that all or almost all of the sound pairs are rhymed/loosely rhymed. According to Saitō, the loose rhyme of the 陽 and 庚 classes used here has been found in many materials of W. Jin. Saitō then claims that the Dharmarakṣa’s intentionally created the quoted portion with rhyme (whether or not he himself wrote the Chinese text), since Dharmarakṣa had very good knowledge of Sanskrit verse (Saitō quotes 宋高僧伝 724a), and his translation group had as many as thirty scholars who helped him translate scriptures.
Otherwise, rhyming verse in T186, Saitō states, all derive from similar/identical verse is found in other scriptures. The verse in fascicle 6 of T186 (521bc) is identical with verse in 修行本起經 T184 ascribed to Zhu Dali 竺大力 and Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, and also with verse in 太子瑞應本起經 T185 ascribed to Zhi Qian. The verse in fascicle 7 (527bc) is similar to other verse in T185 and verse in 長寿王経 T161, an anonymous scripture of W. Jin. The verse in fascicle 8 (534a) is clearly based on verses in fascicle 10 of 百縁経 T200 ascribed to Zhi Qian, or another verse in T161. Saitō claims that those rhymed verse portions are most likely to have been taken from the other scriptures, or else their ascription should be regarded as indeterminate.
Edit
|
335-336 |
As part of a broader examination of rhyming verse in the Dharmaraksa corpus, the general thrust of which is to argue that such rhymed verse is largely atypical of Dharmaraksa, Saito points out that among the rhymed/loosely rhymed verses in T186, only one portion is unique to this text, and hence should have been produced by Dharmaraksa and his group without relying on some existing verse. Saito quotes that portion (T185 [III] 512c) and clarifies that all or almost all of the sound pairs are rhymed/loosely rhymed. According to Saito, the loose rhyme of the 陽 and 庚 classes used here has been found in many materials of W. Jin. Saito then claims that the Dharmaraksa’s intentionally created the quoted portion with rhyme (whether or not he himself wrote the Chinese text), since Dharmaraksa had very good knowledge of Sanskrit verse (Saito quotes 宋高僧伝 724a), and his translation group had as many as thirty scholars who helped him translate scriptures.
Otherwise, rhyming verse in T186, Saito states, all derive from similar/identical verse is found in other scriptures. The verse in fascicle 6 of T186 (521bc) is identical with verse in 修行本起經 T184 ascribed to Zhu Dali 竺大力 and Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, and also with verse in 太子瑞應本起經 T185 ascribed to Zhi Qian. The verse in fascicle 7 (527bc) is similar to other verse in T185 and verse in 長寿王経 T161, an anonymous scripture of W. Jin. The verse in fascicle 8 (534a) is clearly based on verses in fascicle 10 of 百縁経 T200 ascribed to Zhi Qian, or another verse in T161. Saito claims that those rhymed verse portions are most likely to have been taken from the other scriptures, or else their ascription should be regarded as indeterminate. T0186; 普曜大方等典; *Vaitulya-nidana; Fangdeng yuanqi 方等本起; *Lalitavistara-mahavaitulya-dharmaparyaya; 普曜經 |
|
|
Saitō examines verses in T1509 (MPPU) featuring rhyme or loose rhyme, and argues that the most likely explanation for these verses is that they were written by Kumārajīva himself. The main considerations supporting his argument are as follows:
First, none of Kumārajīva's other translations contain rhymed verse. This is the case even when, in the case of VKN T475, he was working in knowledge of an earlier version of the same text (in this case, T474 ascribed to Zhi Qian) which did contain rhymed verse.
Second, however, Kumārajīva was capable of writing rhymed verse in Chinese. Saitō cites three verses (surviving from an original set of ten) written for Fahe 法和 (a monk who studied together 同学 with Dao’an), preserved in GSZ, CSZJJ, the Yiwen leiju 芸文類聚 by Ouyang Xun 欧陽詢 (557-641), and the Jingming xuan lun 浄名玄論 T1780 by Jizang 吉蔵; and one verse that accompanied a gift to Lushan Huiyuan, preserved in GSZ.
MPPU contains 82 rhymed stanzas, out of a total of 612 stanzas. None of these come from the [Mūla]madhyamaka-kārikā 中論. One verse at T1590 (XXV) 161a is perfectly rhymed. Saitō argues that it is unlikely that someone else in Kumārajīva’s team inserted the verses, because this would still not explain the fact that they occur in MPPU but no other text; he rejects the possibility that the verses were inserted into the text later, on the grounds that Dunhuang manuscripts do not indicate that the text underwent such modification during transmission; and he also rejects the possibility that Kumārajīva changed his translation policy, because other works were translated alongside or after MPPU.
Having eliminated these other possibilities, Saitō argues that it is most likely that Kumārajīva added the rhymed verses to the work himself. He speculates that perhaps Kumārajīva felt less objection to inserting his own words into a śāstra than into a sūtra, though he admits that this speculation encounters the objection that there are no rhymed verses in analogous texts like 中論 T1564 and 十住毘婆沙論 T1521.
Edit
|
394-440 |
Saito examines verses in T1509 (MPPU) featuring rhyme or loose rhyme, and argues that the most likely explanation for these verses is that they were written by Kumarajiva himself. The main considerations supporting his argument are as follows:
First, none of Kumarajiva's other translations contain rhymed verse. This is the case even when, in the case of VKN T475, he was working in knowledge of an earlier version of the same text (in this case, T474 ascribed to Zhi Qian) which did contain rhymed verse.
Second, however, Kumarajiva was capable of writing rhymed verse in Chinese. Saito cites three verses (surviving from an original set of ten) written for Fahe 法和 (a monk who studied together 同学 with Dao’an), preserved in GSZ, CSZJJ, the Yiwen leiju 芸文類聚 by Ouyang Xun 欧陽詢 (557-641), and the Jingming xuan lun 浄名玄論 T1780 by Jizang 吉蔵; and one verse that accompanied a gift to Lushan Huiyuan, preserved in GSZ.
MPPU contains 82 rhymed stanzas, out of a total of 612 stanzas. None of these come from the [Mula]madhyamaka-karika 中論. One verse at T1590 (XXV) 161a is perfectly rhymed. Saito argues that it is unlikely that someone else in Kumarajiva’s team inserted the verses, because this would still not explain the fact that they occur in MPPU but no other text; he rejects the possibility that the verses were inserted into the text later, on the grounds that Dunhuang manuscripts do not indicate that the text underwent such modification during transmission; and he also rejects the possibility that Kumarajiva changed his translation policy, because other works were translated alongside or after MPPU.
Having eliminated these other possibilities, Saito argues that it is most likely that Kumarajiva added the rhymed verses to the work himself. He speculates that perhaps Kumarajiva felt less objection to inserting his own words into a sastra than into a sutra, though he admits that this speculation encounters the objection that there are no rhymed verses in analogous texts like 中論 T1564 and 十住毘婆沙論 T1521. T1509; 大智度論 |
|
|
Saitō compares three versions of the Qi nü jing 七女経, and argues that the Qi nü jing quoted in the Baochang's Jing lü yi xiang 経律異相 T2121 is Zhi Qian’s work, rather than the Qi nü jing T556, and further, that the Qi nü guan jing 七女観経 in the Dunhuang manuscripts is apocryphal. The gist of his discussion can be presented as follows:
According to Saitō, there are three versions of the Qi nü jing extant today: T556, ascribed to Zhi Qian; the Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 (LIII) 185b19-186a18; and the Qi nü guan jing 七女観経 among the Dunhuang manuscripts (S. 1548, S. 5839, T2913). Each was produced independently, without being influenced by the others (507 [but see below for an assertion that the apocryphal Dunhuang text is based upon the text witnessed in Baochang’s T2121 --- MR]).
Catalogues also record three versions of the Qi nü jing: the Qi nü jing ascribed to Zhi Qian (cf. T556); a Qi nü ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (claimed by Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ to be the same text as the Qi nü jing); and a Qi nü ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅 (also called Qi nü jing or Qi nü ben xing ming jing 七女本心明経), which Fei claims is similar to the Qi nü jing ascribed to Zhi Qian. The last two ascriptions were first given by Fei in LDSBJ, and adopted by succeeding catalogues. KYL records that only T556 is extant (508-510).
Saitō compares these three texts and maintains that the Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is based on some unknown text, but not on T556, although Baochang states that the quoted text is from the Qi nü jing 出仏説七女経. The Qi nü guan jing is not influenced by the other two extant texts [again, see below --- MR]. Saitō gives a table presenting the differences between key terms used in the three texts (510-511).
Saitō examines the verses in all three texts (511-516, 518). On that basis, and also some other factors such as vocabulary, he makes the following claims about the three texts:
T556 is unlikely to be Zhi Qian’ work, since the lengths of the lines in the verses are irregular (516). In addition, it features a number of terms not used in other Zhi Qian’s works (521).
The Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is likely to be Zhi Qian’s work, since the majority of the sound pairs in the verse are intentionally made to rhyme or loosely rhymed (516, 521).
The Dunhuang Qi nü guan jing is apocryphal, because a) its verses rhyme perfectly (after Saitō’s careful examination, on page 517-519); b) it uses the term “Mingyuan wang” 冥縁王 (referring to Ui 1969) (520); and c) the title Qi nü guan jing is not listed in any historical catalogues down to the Zhenyuan lu 貞元録 completed in 800 CE (520). Saitō argues that the Qi nü guan jing was based on the Qi nü jing in Baochang’s T2121, since the verses in both have a similar order, structure, and vocabulary (520). The Qi nü guan jing was produced probably in the ninth century or later, since it is not recorded in earlier catalogues and uses the character 怙 for rhyming, which rhymes with the other character of the pair (処) only in the pronunciation of the eighth century or later (517-519).
Edit
|
206-248 |
Saito compares three versions of the Qi nu jing 七女経, and argues that the Qi nu jing quoted in the Baochang's Jing lu yi xiang 経律異相 T2121 is Zhi Qian’s work, rather than the Qi nu jing T556, and further, that the Qi nu guan jing 七女観経 in the Dunhuang manuscripts is apocryphal. The gist of his discussion can be presented as follows:
According to Saito, there are three versions of the Qi nu jing extant today: T556, ascribed to Zhi Qian; the Qi nu jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 (LIII) 185b19-186a18; and the Qi nu guan jing 七女観経 among the Dunhuang manuscripts (S. 1548, S. 5839, T2913). Each was produced independently, without being influenced by the others (507 [but see below for an assertion that the apocryphal Dunhuang text is based upon the text witnessed in Baochang’s T2121 --- MR]).
Catalogues also record three versions of the Qi nu jing: the Qi nu jing ascribed to Zhi Qian (cf. T556); a Qi nu ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Dharmaraksa (claimed by Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ to be the same text as the Qi nu jing); and a Qi nu ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅 (also called Qi nu jing or Qi nu ben xing ming jing 七女本心明経), which Fei claims is similar to the Qi nu jing ascribed to Zhi Qian. The last two ascriptions were first given by Fei in LDSBJ, and adopted by succeeding catalogues. KYL records that only T556 is extant (508-510).
Saito compares these three texts and maintains that the Qi nu jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is based on some unknown text, but not on T556, although Baochang states that the quoted text is from the Qi nu jing 出仏説七女経. The Qi nu guan jing is not influenced by the other two extant texts [again, see below --- MR]. Saito gives a table presenting the differences between key terms used in the three texts (510-511).
Saito examines the verses in all three texts (511-516, 518). On that basis, and also some other factors such as vocabulary, he makes the following claims about the three texts:
T556 is unlikely to be Zhi Qian’ work, since the lengths of the lines in the verses are irregular (516). In addition, it features a number of terms not used in other Zhi Qian’s works (521).
The Qi nu jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is likely to be Zhi Qian’s work, since the majority of the sound pairs in the verse are intentionally made to rhyme or loosely rhymed (516, 521).
The Dunhuang Qi nu guan jing is apocryphal, because a) its verses rhyme perfectly (after Saito’s careful examination, on page 517-519); b) it uses the term “Mingyuan wang” 冥縁王 (referring to Ui 1969) (520); and c) the title Qi nu guan jing is not listed in any historical catalogues down to the Zhenyuan lu 貞元録 completed in 800 CE (520). Saito argues that the Qi nu guan jing was based on the Qi nu jing in Baochang’s T2121, since the verses in both have a similar order, structure, and vocabulary (520). The Qi nu guan jing was produced probably in the ninth century or later, since it is not recorded in earlier catalogues and uses the character 怙 for rhyming, which rhymes with the other character of the pair (処) only in the pronunciation of the eighth century or later (517-519). Fo shuo qi nu jing 佛說七女經 (JLYX version) Qi nu guan jing 七女觀經 T0556; 佛說七女經 |
|
|
According to Saitō, there exist three alternate Chinese translations and a Pali parallel for the *Śṛgālavāda-sūtra. The verses in T16 are different from those in the other four versions with regard to content, and also form — only they have loose end rhymes 通押. In T16, after the normal ending of the text, verses consisting of eighty padas 句 (with eight padas per stanza, viz., ten stanza in total) appear, following the phrase 仏説唄偈. Saitō cites Akamatsu’s observation that “Mahāyāna” terms such as “six perfections” 六度 and deva among devas 天中天 are used in the verses of T16, and hence the text must have been modified sometime later than the production of the other four versions. Saitō agrees with Akamatsu to claim that T16 and its verses are not a work of the Latter Han period, and that the verses are clearly not An Shigao’s.
Edit
|
208-211 |
According to Saito, there exist three alternate Chinese translations and a Pali parallel for the *Srgalavada-sutra. The verses in T16 are different from those in the other four versions with regard to content, and also form — only they have loose end rhymes 通押. In T16, after the normal ending of the text, verses consisting of eighty padas 句 (with eight padas per stanza, viz., ten stanza in total) appear, following the phrase 仏説唄偈. Saito cites Akamatsu’s observation that “Mahayana” terms such as “six perfections” 六度 and deva among devas 天中天 are used in the verses of T16, and hence the text must have been modified sometime later than the production of the other four versions. Saito agrees with Akamatsu to claim that T16 and its verses are not a work of the Latter Han period, and that the verses are clearly not An Shigao’s. 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 |
|
|
Saitō argues that the 救諸衆生一切苦難經 T2915 (apocryphal) was created sometime between the end of the Six Dynasties period and the early Tang period, although there is no record of the date of its composition. According to him, the well-organized end rhymes and tone 平仄 used in the text suggests that period of time (536, 541-2).
Saitō also points out that T2915 has some connection with 新菩薩經 T2917 [it is not specified whether the text referred to is T2917A or T2917B --- AI] and 勸善經 T2916, since the three use similar vocabulary and are often transcribed together in the same scroll (536).
Edit
|
536, 541-2 |
Saito argues that the 救諸衆生一切苦難經 T2915 (apocryphal) was created sometime between the end of the Six Dynasties period and the early Tang period, although there is no record of the date of its composition. According to him, the well-organized end rhymes and tone 平仄 used in the text suggests that period of time (536, 541-2).
Saito also points out that T2915 has some connection with 新菩薩經 T2917 [it is not specified whether the text referred to is T2917A or T2917B --- AI] and 勸善經 T2916, since the three use similar vocabulary and are often transcribed together in the same scroll (536). T2915; 救諸眾生一切苦難經 |
|
|
Saitō points out that the 救諸衆生一切苦難經 T2915 (apocryphal) has some connection with the 新菩薩經 T2917 [it is not specified whether the text referred to is T2917A or T2917B or both --- AI] and the 勸善經 T2916, since the three use similar vocabulary and are often transcribed in a single scroll.
Edit
|
536 |
Saito points out that the 救諸衆生一切苦難經 T2915 (apocryphal) has some connection with the 新菩薩經 T2917 [it is not specified whether the text referred to is T2917A or T2917B or both --- AI] and the 勸善經 T2916, since the three use similar vocabulary and are often transcribed in a single scroll. T2917B; 新菩薩經 |
|
|
According to Saitō, the Liu gen zan 六根讃 in the 淨土五會念佛誦經觀行儀 T2827, edited 撰 by Fazhao 法照 (the full version 広本) [the title is written 淨土五會念佛誦經觀行儀卷中・下 --- AI] has a note stating that it was written by Fazhao 法照. Nonetheless, the latter part of the work is totally different from that part of the Li liu gen zan 離六根讃 in the (淨土) 五會念佛略法事儀讃 T1983 (the shortened version 略本), which is known as Fazhao’s work (547).
Saitō argues that the Liu gen zan in T2827 was indeed created by Fazhao, despite the differences in its latter part from the Li liu gen zan in T1983, because the 念佛巌大悟禪師碑記 edited 撰 by Min Wenshu 閔文叔, records that Fazhao quoted his own lines in the Liu gen zan in a conversation with Emperor Dezong 徳宗 (547-548).
Edit
|
547-548 |
According to Saito, the Liu gen zan 六根讃 in the 淨土五會念佛誦經觀行儀 T2827, edited 撰 by Fazhao 法照 (the full version 広本) [the title is written 淨土五會念佛誦經觀行儀卷中・下 --- AI] has a note stating that it was written by Fazhao 法照. Nonetheless, the latter part of the work is totally different from that part of the Li liu gen zan 離六根讃 in the (淨土) 五會念佛略法事儀讃 T1983 (the shortened version 略本), which is known as Fazhao’s work (547).
Saito argues that the Liu gen zan in T2827 was indeed created by Fazhao, despite the differences in its latter part from the Li liu gen zan in T1983, because the 念佛巌大悟禪師碑記 edited 撰 by Min Wenshu 閔文叔, records that Fazhao quoted his own lines in the Liu gen zan in a conversation with Emperor Dezong 徳宗 (547-548). Fazhao 法照 Fazhao 法照 淨土五會念佛誦經觀行儀卷中 T2827 |
|
|
Saitō points out that 救諸衆生一切苦難經 T2915 (apocryphal) has some connection with 新菩薩經 T2917 [it is not specified whether the text referred to is T2917A or T2917B or both --- AI] and 勸善經 T2916 since the three use similar vocabulary and are often transcribed on the same fascicle.
Edit
|
p.536 |
Saito points out that 救諸衆生一切苦難經 T2915 (apocryphal) has some connection with 新菩薩經 T2917 [it is not specified whether the text referred to is T2917A or T2917B or both --- AI] and 勸善經 T2916 since the three use similar vocabulary and are often transcribed on the same fascicle. T2915; 救諸眾生一切苦難經 T2916 ; Quan shan jing 勸善經 T2917B; 新菩薩經 |