Source: Saitō 2013

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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