Salguero, C. Pierce. "The Buddhist Medicine King in Literary Context: Reconsidering an Early Medieval Example of Indian Influence on Chinese Medicine and Surgery." History of Religions 48, no. 3 (2009): 183-210.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
The Āmrapalī and Jīvaka Avadāna Sūtra (Fo shuo Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing, T. 553) and the Āmrapāli and Jīvaka Sūtra (Fo shuo Nainü Qipo jing T554) are very similar, differing only in minor details, so that they cannot be regarded as independent translations or compositions, but rather, constitute variant transmissions of the same basic text. Both texts are one fascicle long, tell of Jīvaka’s life and healing exploits, refer to him the “Medicine King,” and are named after Jivaka and his mother Āmrapālī. T553 is considerably longer than T554, and contains interpolations from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 T1428. [Salguero does not specify where these overlapping passages appear in either text, nor his reasons for thinking that the direction of borrowing or influence could not be --- as would be chronologically easier to understand --- T553 → T1428 --- MR.] In addition, there are occasional divergences in Chinese characters and phrasing which Salguero writes are “probably due to scribal error or correction.” Tradition ascribes the translation of the Jīvaka Sūtra (both T553 and T554) to An Shigao, but Salguero writes that we cannot accept this attribution. He notes that Zürcher’s definitive list of sixteen extant texts which can be reliably attributed to An Shigao does not include the Jīvaka Sūtra (Zürcher, 1992). Salguero finds no evidence that this text existed in the Eastern Han, when An Shigao worked at Luoyang. The first references to the full title, Āmrapāli and Jīvaka Avadāna Sūtra, do not appear until the Tang. The shorter Jīvaka Sūtra T553 is reproduced in a Liang Dynasty Buddhist encyclopaedia (which Salguero does not name [but referring almost certainly to the 經律異相 T2121 (LIII) 166c17-170a9 --- MR]). CSZJJ lists the Amrapāli and Jīvaka Sūtra [奈女耆域經一卷(或云奈女經, T2145 (LV) 8b1], but notably does not list the text among those translated by An Shigao. Instead, Sengyou attributes it to Dharmarakṣa, on the basis of Dao’an’s catalogue. Attributions to An Shigao, however, “also become commonplace by the Tang.” Attribution to An Shigao has remained dominant, and is “repeated in all reference books in Chinese or European languages” that Salguero consulted in preparing his article. [NOTE: For the exact title in CSZJJ, viz., 奈女耆域經, Fajing still carries the attribution to Dharmarakṣa, T2146 (LV) 128a21; so too does LDSBJ, T2034 (XLIX) 63c7; Yancong, T2147 (LV) 154b3-4; Jingtai, T2148 (LV) 186c18; DTNDL, T2149 (LV) 234b9, 299a6-7, 322c29; Gu jin yi jing tu ji, T2151 (LV) 353c3. This makes it appear that the ascription to An Shigao is first carried by DZKZM, T2153 (LV) 417b28-29, but a note there says that the ascription is taken from LDSBJ. However, the problem is a confusion of title, and as so often, the trouble does indeed trace back to LDSBJ, who gives the ascription to An Shigao under the title 㮈女祇域經, T2034 (XLIX) 52a5. Salguero's handling of this information, p. 188 and n. 16, is confused somewhat by his treatment of LDSBJ as "dating to the Tang", and his omission of Fajing and Yancong from his survey --- MR.] Following Zysk, Salguero notes that at loci in the Sarvāstivada Vinaya T1421 and the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya T1435 where we would expect to find the Jīvaka narrative, it is missing (“has been removed.....excised”). Salguero writes, with apparent approval, "Zysk speculates that in China the Jīvaka story was excised from this original location due to its popularity (or, I would add, its potential for popularization)." [However, Salguero does not make clear the relation between this speculation and T553/T554, nor, alternatively, the form and location in which the resulting “independent sūtra in its own right” is supposed to have circulated. From his arguments later in the article (see below), we presumably should infer that this supposed "independent sūtra" is precisely T553/T554. --- MR] Salguero points out that the transcription 祇域 for Jīvaka's name is extremely rare. He says "it appears only in the Jīvaka sūtra and in one other composition from the Northern Wei dynasty", 192. [Salguero does not specify what that other texts is; in fact, it appears only in T553, not T554; and aside from T553, in two texts, MPPU T1509, and the "Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish" T202. --- MR] Salguero suggests, "This may provide a clue as to the provenance of the Jīvaka Sūtra, suggesting a temporal and possibly even a geographic range for the production of the extant texts" (192) [sic plural, even though this detail only appears in T553; Salguero does not specify here what place or time this clue would point to --- MR]. [By contrast, 耆婆 for Jīvaka's name, found in T554, is common, but seems to be unknown before the fifth century. --- MR.] Salguero discusses a range of medical ideas that may suggest that some of the text is of Chinese origin, including acupuncture needles (195), terms like 藥方 and 針脈 (196) or the 五臟 (200), a reference [unique in translation literature] to the 本草經 (197), and a diagnosis in terms of qi 反戾向後，氣結不通故死 (200). Salguero summarises his conclusions about the date and provenance of the two texts, and their relative priority, as follows: "A watertight argument for the dating of the received versions of the Jīvaka Sūtra remains impossible....While pinpointing the provenance more narrowly must remain speculative, I believe the evidence outlined above suggests that the shorter Jīvaka Sūtra [viz. T554] is a composite text made up of selections of the Medicine King's hagiography from a number of sources translated in the early medieval period (including a fourth-century [sic? --- Dharmarakṣa was active a few years into the fourth century, but the bulk of his career falls in the third --- MR] text by Zhu Fahu [Dharmarakṣa], and possibly other versions of the tale excised from the Vinayas), brought together with the addition of apocryphal material in the fifth century. I take the longer version of the Jīvaka Sūtra [viz. T553] to be a later, re-edited version of this same text that incorporated the passages from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, which was possibly compiled in the Northern Wei, and which was available by the Tang" (192). [NOTE: Salguero shows no textual evidence of a connection between T554 and T1421 or T1435, nor details of the connection between T553 and T1428, as noted above; he shows no stylistic evidence associating either text with Dharmarakṣa, nor stylistic evidence dissociating them from An Shigao; he gives no evidence, that I can find, connecting T553 to the N. Wei, unless he means the single appearance of 祇域 in T202. --- MR] Given Jīvaka’s position as the “Medicine King” Salguero suggests that An Shigao may have seemed a logical person to associate with the translation, because he too was said to have possessed great medical knowledge. |
186-189 |
The Amrapali and Jivaka Avadana Sutra (Fo shuo Nainu Qiyu yinyuan jing, T. 553) and the Amrapali and Jivaka Sutra (Fo shuo Nainu Qipo jing T554) are very similar, differing only in minor details, so that they cannot be regarded as independent translations or compositions, but rather, constitute variant transmissions of the same basic text. Both texts are one fascicle long, tell of Jivaka’s life and healing exploits, refer to him the “Medicine King,” and are named after Jivaka and his mother Amrapali. T553 is considerably longer than T554, and contains interpolations from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 T1428. [Salguero does not specify where these overlapping passages appear in either text, nor his reasons for thinking that the direction of borrowing or influence could not be --- as would be chronologically easier to understand --- T553 → T1428 --- MR.] In addition, there are occasional divergences in Chinese characters and phrasing which Salguero writes are “probably due to scribal error or correction.” Tradition ascribes the translation of the Jivaka Sutra (both T553 and T554) to An Shigao, but Salguero writes that we cannot accept this attribution. He notes that Zurcher’s definitive list of sixteen extant texts which can be reliably attributed to An Shigao does not include the Jivaka Sutra (Zurcher, 1992). Salguero finds no evidence that this text existed in the Eastern Han, when An Shigao worked at Luoyang. The first references to the full title, Amrapali and Jivaka Avadana Sutra, do not appear until the Tang. The shorter Jivaka Sutra T553 is reproduced in a Liang Dynasty Buddhist encyclopaedia (which Salguero does not name [but referring almost certainly to the 經律異相 T2121 (LIII) 166c17-170a9 --- MR]). CSZJJ lists the Amrapali and Jivaka Sutra [奈女耆域經一卷(或云奈女經, T2145 (LV) 8b1], but notably does not list the text among those translated by An Shigao. Instead, Sengyou attributes it to Dharmaraksa, on the basis of Dao’an’s catalogue. Attributions to An Shigao, however, “also become commonplace by the Tang.” Attribution to An Shigao has remained dominant, and is “repeated in all reference books in Chinese or European languages” that Salguero consulted in preparing his article. [NOTE: For the exact title in CSZJJ, viz., 奈女耆域經, Fajing still carries the attribution to Dharmaraksa, T2146 (LV) 128a21; so too does LDSBJ, T2034 (XLIX) 63c7; Yancong, T2147 (LV) 154b3-4; Jingtai, T2148 (LV) 186c18; DTNDL, T2149 (LV) 234b9, 299a6-7, 322c29; Gu jin yi jing tu ji, T2151 (LV) 353c3. This makes it appear that the ascription to An Shigao is first carried by DZKZM, T2153 (LV) 417b28-29, but a note there says that the ascription is taken from LDSBJ. However, the problem is a confusion of title, and as so often, the trouble does indeed trace back to LDSBJ, who gives the ascription to An Shigao under the title 㮈女祇域經, T2034 (XLIX) 52a5. Salguero's handling of this information, p. 188 and n. 16, is confused somewhat by his treatment of LDSBJ as "dating to the Tang", and his omission of Fajing and Yancong from his survey --- MR.] Following Zysk, Salguero notes that at loci in the Sarvastivada Vinaya T1421 and the Mahisasaka Vinaya T1435 where we would expect to find the Jivaka narrative, it is missing (“has been removed.....excised”). Salguero writes, with apparent approval, "Zysk speculates that in China the Jivaka story was excised from this original location due to its popularity (or, I would add, its potential for popularization)." [However, Salguero does not make clear the relation between this speculation and T553/T554, nor, alternatively, the form and location in which the resulting “independent sutra in its own right” is supposed to have circulated. From his arguments later in the article (see below), we presumably should infer that this supposed "independent sutra" is precisely T553/T554. --- MR] Salguero points out that the transcription 祇域 for Jivaka's name is extremely rare. He says "it appears only in the Jivaka sutra and in one other composition from the Northern Wei dynasty", 192. [Salguero does not specify what that other texts is; in fact, it appears only in T553, not T554; and aside from T553, in two texts, MPPU T1509, and the "Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish" T202. --- MR] Salguero suggests, "This may provide a clue as to the provenance of the Jivaka Sutra, suggesting a temporal and possibly even a geographic range for the production of the extant texts" (192) [sic plural, even though this detail only appears in T553; Salguero does not specify here what place or time this clue would point to --- MR]. [By contrast, 耆婆 for Jivaka's name, found in T554, is common, but seems to be unknown before the fifth century. --- MR.] Salguero discusses a range of medical ideas that may suggest that some of the text is of Chinese origin, including acupuncture needles (195), terms like 藥方 and 針脈 (196) or the 五臟 (200), a reference [unique in translation literature] to the 本草經 (197), and a diagnosis in terms of qi 反戾向後,氣結不通故死 (200). Salguero summarises his conclusions about the date and provenance of the two texts, and their relative priority, as follows: "A watertight argument for the dating of the received versions of the Jivaka Sutra remains impossible....While pinpointing the provenance more narrowly must remain speculative, I believe the evidence outlined above suggests that the shorter Jivaka Sutra [viz. T554] is a composite text made up of selections of the Medicine King's hagiography from a number of sources translated in the early medieval period (including a fourth-century [sic? --- Dharmaraksa was active a few years into the fourth century, but the bulk of his career falls in the third --- MR] text by Zhu Fahu [Dharmaraksa], and possibly other versions of the tale excised from the Vinayas), brought together with the addition of apocryphal material in the fifth century. I take the longer version of the Jivaka Sutra [viz. T553] to be a later, re-edited version of this same text that incorporated the passages from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, which was possibly compiled in the Northern Wei, and which was available by the Tang" (192). [NOTE: Salguero shows no textual evidence of a connection between T554 and T1421 or T1435, nor details of the connection between T553 and T1428, as noted above; he shows no stylistic evidence associating either text with Dharmaraksa, nor stylistic evidence dissociating them from An Shigao; he gives no evidence, that I can find, connecting T553 to the N. Wei, unless he means the single appearance of 祇域 in T202. --- MR] Given Jivaka’s position as the “Medicine King” Salguero suggests that An Shigao may have seemed a logical person to associate with the translation, because he too was said to have possessed great medical knowledge. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經 T0554; 佛說柰女耆婆經 |