Shi Zhanghui 釋章慧. “Shenyue jing jingben dingwei yu jingti kao 《申曰經》經本定位與經題考.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies 中華佛學研究 8 (2004): 51-100.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
In this paper, Ven. Zhanghui argues against an assertion made by Hayashiya Tomojirō in Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū 異譯經類の研究 (1945). Hayashiya claims that the titles of the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 and the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 have been swapped. Zhanghui argues that Hayashiya misunderstands the records in KYSJL, leading him to argue incorrectly. Additionally, Zhanghui points out that the two titles should be corrected respectively to Shenyue jing 申曰經 and Shenyuedou benjing 申曰兜本經. Zhanghui claims that 申曰/申曰兜 are transcriptions of the proper name Śrīgup/Śrīgupta or Sirigut/Sirigutta in Indic languages, and that the substitutions of 日 and 兒 for 曰 and 兜 are likely later errors (63, 74-75). [Zhanghui does not make reference to pronunciations reconstructed by historical phonologists in making this argument --- MR.] Zhanghui bases her analysis on evidence from multiple Buddhist catalogues, Āgama texts and prefaces, quotations from Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, and various editions of KYSJL found in different versions of the canon. In arguing against Hayashiya, Zhanghui points out that the text of the Shenridou ben jing 申日兜本經 cited by Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121 is no different from that of T536. Zhanghui further surmises that the text of the Shenridou ben jing witnessed by Zhisheng 智昇 should be the same as that seen by Sengyou 僧祐, given that the author of Jing lü yi xiang is Baochang 寶唱, a disciple of Sengyou. Additionally, Zhanghui argues that the correct title for T536 should be Shenridou ben jing or Shenridou jing 申日兜經, rather than Shenri’er ben jing, which is an error that dates back at least as far as Sengyou (74-75). Zhanghui's arguments about the title also aim to refute the old arguments by Hayashiya that the titles of T535 and T536 had been switched. On the assumption that the title including er 兒 "son" was correct, Hayashiya's idea was that idea that a text bearing that title should revolve around the son as the central character, and the content of T535 precisely accords with that title, focusing on the son. On the basis of her argument that the name transcribed in the title should in fact be Shenyuedou 申曰兜, Zhanghui holds that there are no longer grounds to reverse the titles of T535 and T536. |
|
|
In this paper, Ven. Zhanghui argues against an assertion made by Hayashiya Tomojirō in Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū 異譯經類の研究 (1945). Hayashiya claims that the titles of the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 and the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 have been swapped. Zhanghui argues that Hayashiya misunderstands the records in KYL, leading him to argue incorrectly (see also separate entry on T536). Additionally, Zhanghui points out that the two titles should be corrected respectively to Shenyue jing 申曰經 and Shenyuedou benjing 申曰兜本經. [But see below for a qualm about this argument in application to T535. --- MR] Zhanghui claims that 申曰/申曰兜 are transcriptions of the proper name Śrīgup/Śrīgupta or Sirigut/Sirigutta in Indic languages, and that the substitutions of 日 and 兒 for 曰 and 兜 are likely later errors (63, 74-75). Zhanghui bases her analysis on evidence from multiple Buddhist catalogues, Āgama texts and prefaces, quotations from Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, and various editions of KYSJL found in different versions of the canon. Zhanghui's arguments about the titles aim to refute the old arguments by Hayashiya that the titles of T535 and T536 had been switched. On the assumption that the title including er 兒 "son" was correct, Hayashiya's idea was that idea that a text bearing that title should revolve around the son as the central character, and the content of T535 precisely accords with that title, focusing on the son. On the basis of her argument that the name transcribed in the title should in fact be Shenyuedou 申曰兜, Zhanghui holds that there are no longer grounds to reverse the titles of T535 and T536. Zhanghui further claims that our present T535 is most likely not the text witnessed under the title Shenri jing/Shenyue jing in the catalogues, as most catalogues state that the Shenri jing and the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 (the same title as T534) are alternate titles for the same text. Since that text is already accounted for in the present canon by T534, there should exist no separate text under the alternate title, namely Shenri jing (as the present T535). Hence, the present T535 was probably a later addition to the canon. However, KYSJL, in the edition in T, presents contradictory records about these titles in Chapter 19 Ruzang lu 入藏錄, and Chapter 20 Ruzang lu 入藏錄. Further contradictions exist between KYSJL and the reports of other Buddhist catalogues. KYSJL Chapter 19 records both a five-folio Shenri jing and a nine-folio Yueguang tongzi jing/Shenri jing, thus recognizing two different texts. By contrast, Chapter 20 suggests that the title Shenri jing 申日經 should be deleted, since they are merely the same text, but with two alternate titles (p.64-65). To address this contradiction, Zhanghui consults other editions of KYSJL in the Korean Canon 高麗藏 and the Qisha Canon 磧砂藏, the Yongle Northern Canon 永樂北藏, and the Qianlong Canon 龍藏. Zhanghui finds that a Shenri jing was listed in addition to other scriptures in all these versions of the canon, but the total number of relevant texts changes accordingly in the Korean Canon only. This evidence, Zhanghui argues, indicates that deliberate revisions were made to KYSJL (p.66-68). Additionally, subsequent Buddhist catalogues that inherit information from KYSJL, such as Yuanzhao's 圓照 Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao jiao lu 貞元新定釋腳錄 and Xuanyi's 玄逸 Da Tang Kaiyuan Shijiao guangpin lizhang 大唐開元釋教廣品歷章 do not include the Shenri jing 申日經. Neither do Huilin's 慧琳 Yiqiejing yin yi 一切經音義 and Kehong's 可洪 Xinji zangjing yinyi suihan lu新集藏經音義隨函錄, which are both based on Zhisheng's Ruzang lu 入藏錄. Therefore, it is most likely that there was originally no separate text entitled Shenri jing, and the extant T535 is a text that Zhisheng 智昇 did not intend to include in the canon. [Note: If T535 is indeed so late, it is difficult to see how Zhanghui's argument about the transcribed name in the title of T536 would also imply that the title of T535 needs to be "corrected" --- it appears from Zhanghui's own arguments that by the time she thinks T535 would have entered circulation, the form Shenri was also well established. --- MR] |