Source: Hayashiya 1945

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Anan nian mi jing 阿難念彌經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出中阿含; 17b18. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

462

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Bei xin yiyi jing 悲心悒悒經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b2. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

466

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Boqusha jing 鉢呿沙經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b17. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

467

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Cheni benmo jing 車匿本末經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云車匿經; 17c14. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

463

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Da jieya fa 打犍稚法 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b27. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

467

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Diaoda jing 調達經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b11. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

466

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fen shen sheli jing 分身舍利經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b20. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

467

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Hai you ba shi jing 海有八事經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18a10. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

464

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Huanyu jing 歡豫經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a4. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

459

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Ji fa yan 吉法驗 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b23. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

467

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Jinse nü jing 金色女經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出阿毘曇; 17b22. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

462

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Laizhayuluo jing 賴吒謣羅經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出中阿[含經 SYM]含; 18b14. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

466

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Liu jing jing 六淨經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出律經; 17a1. Hayashiya also gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

459

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Lü jie 律解 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b26. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

467

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Mifeng wang jing 蜜蜂王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 出六度集; 17c21. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

463

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Mile jing 彌勒經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出長阿含; 18a6. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

464

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Muqu jing 目佉經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note 或安公云出方等部[－ SYM]; 18a23. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (However, cf. also T1013 and T1015.)

Edit

465

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Neizang da fangdeng jing 內藏大方等經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18a15. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

465

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Puming wang jing 普明王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a17. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Qi che jing 七車經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18a5. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

464

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Qu dushi dao jing 趣度世道經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b3. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

466

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Sahetan wang jing 薩和檀王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 出六度集; 17c6. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

462

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Shan ben jing 睒本經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b12. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

466

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Shi’er si jing 十二死經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17b12. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (Cf. also T753.)

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Shixing song da pin ben mo 仕行送大品本末is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b25. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

467

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Aba jing 阿拔經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出長阿含或云阿拔摩納經; 18a7. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya as Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經 T20, attributed in the present canon to Zhi Qian 支謙.

Edit

464

According to Hayashiya, among the titles he refers to as the group of Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 texts, only five ever existed, four of which are included in the Taishō. Those four titles are:

the Heng shui jing 恒水經 T33, attributed to Faju 法炬
the Fa hai jing 法海經, T34 attributed to Faju
the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 T35, attributed to Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什
the Zhanpo biqiu jing 瞻婆比丘經 T64 (*Campa-bhikṣu-sūtra), attributed to Faju

(The fifth one in the group, the Hai you ba de jing 海有八事經 listed by Dao’an, has been lost since the 梁 period.) Hayashiya argues that all of the attributions given to the four extant texts are incorrect, and that the texts should be reclassified as anonymous scriptures.

The gist of Hayashiya’s analysis of T33, attributed to Faju, can be shown as follows:

A Heng shui jing 恒水經 was listed by Sengyou in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, as (a) the Heng shui jie jing 恒水戒經 (then extant) and also as (b) the Heng shui bu shuo jie jing 恒水不説戒經 (then lost), which Hayashiya claims to be one and the same text (70). Hayashiya points out that the ascription to Faju was first given by LDSBJ for the Heng he pi jing 恒河譬經 (77). KYL followed LDSBJ in this regard, by listing the Heng shui jing 恒水經with the ascription to Faju and the alternate title Heng he pi jing 恒河譬經. The Taishō took this ascription for the Heng shui jing 恒水經 T33 (75, 79). Hayashiya argues that the Heng he pi jing 恒河譬經 and the Heng shui jing 恒水經 were most likely different texts, because only KYL claims the two are identical, without giving any reasons, and because "Ganges" 恒河 and gaggarā 恒水 are totally different words (the latter referring to a pond near the Ganges 恒河) (75). Most of all, the ascription to Faju given by LDSBJ is baseless, as well as all other ascriptions it gives to the texts in the group of the Hai ba de jing. Hayashiya mentions a number of reasons for regarding LDSBJ as unreliable in this regard, including the fact that it ascribes the Fo wen Axulun da hai you jian jing 佛問阿須輪大海有減經 (the same text as the Hai you ba shi jing 海有八事經), as listed in CSZJJ, to Kumārajīva, which is chronologically impossible (77-78). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that T33 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or W. Jin period (80-81).

Edit

65-82

According to Hayashiya, among the titles he refers to as the group of Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 texts, only five ever existed, four of which are included in the Taishō. Those four titles are:

the Heng shui jing 恒水經 T33, attributed to Faju 法炬
the Fa hai jing 法海經, T34 attributed to Faju
the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 T35, attributed to Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什
the Zhanpo biqiu jing 瞻婆比丘經 T64 (*Campa-bhikṣu-sūtra), attributed to Faju

(The fifth one in the group, the Hai you ba de jing 海有八事經 listed by Dao’an, has been lost since the 梁 period.) Hayashiya argues that all of the attributions given to the four extant texts are incorrect, and that the texts should be reclassified as anonymous scriptures.

The gist of Hayashiya’s analysis of T34, attributed to Faju, can be shown as follows:

According to Hayashiya, the tone and vocabulary of T34 are clearly that of the W. Jin period. The ascription to Faju was first given by LDSBJ, without any grounds, and hence should be rejected. Hayashiya further asserts that T34 is the Fa hai jing 法海經 shown in Dao’an’s catalogue, because among the group of Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 texts, only T34 contains phrases that could be the source of the title Fa hai jing 法海經 (72). Thus, he concludes that the text should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin period (80-81).

Edit

65-82

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is listed as extant 有; 17a18. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 T40, attributed in the present canon (T) to Dharmakṣema 曇無讖.

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 16c22. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經 T59, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhi Qian 支謙.

Edit

458

According to Hayashiya, among the titles he refers to as the group of Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 texts, only five ever existed, four of which are included in the Taishō. Those four titles are:

the Heng shui jing 恒水經 T33, attributed to Faju 法炬
the Fa hai jing 法海經, T34 attributed to Faju
the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 T35, attributed to Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什
the Zhanpo biqiu jing 瞻婆比丘經 T64 (*Campa-bhikṣu-sūtra), attributed to Faju

(The fifth one in the group, the Hai you ba de jing 海有八事經 listed by Dao’an, has been lost since the 梁 period.) Hayashiya argues that all of the attributions given to the four extant texts are incorrect, and that the texts should be reclassified as anonymous scriptures.

The gist of Hayashiya’s analysis of T64, attributed to Faju, can be shown as follows:

According to Hayashiya, the Zhanpo biqiu jing 瞻婆比丘經 T64 (*Campa-bhikṣu-sūtra) was first ascribed to Faju by LDSBJ, followed by KYL then by the Taishō. He asserts that ascription is incorrect, because LDSBJ did not show any grounds for it, and the tone and vocabulary of T64 are quite different from those of Faju’s works (77-78). Hayashiya does not say exactly how T64 should be classified, but according to him the text was first listed in Sengyou’s catalogue as the Zhanpo biqiu jing 瞻婆比丘經, an extant anonymous scripture, and also as the Zhanpo guo Fo shuo jie jing 瞻波國佛説戒經, an unseen anonymous scripture (overlapping entries) (67-68, 74). No attribution, other than the incorrect one to Faju, has been given by any catalogue (76-80).

Edit

65-82

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Doutiao jing 兜調經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出中阿含; 17b19. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Doutiao jing 兜調經 T78, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

462

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zhi yi jing 治意經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云佛治意經餘錄並同; 17b16. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Zhi yi jing 治意經 T96, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Jie de xiang jing 戒德香經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17c23. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Jie de xiang jing 戒德香經 T116, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭.

Edit

464

According to Hayashiya, the Fang niu jing 放牛經 T123 was first ascribed to Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 by LDSBJ (under the title Mu niu jing 牧牛經), followed by KYL and then by the Taishō. Hayashiya rejects this ascription, for the following reasons:

1) a Fang niu fa jing 放牛法經 was listed by Sengyou 僧祐 in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, and the vocabulary of T123 is indeed old, of the W. Jin period or earlier, and could not possibly be that of Kumārajīva (366, 406);

2) Among as many as 52 titles that were newly ascribed to Kumārajīva by LDSBJ, very few of them were given the same ascription by Fajing, though his catalogue was compiled about the same time, and is more reliable than LDSBJ; and

3) The source Fei cited, viz., the Bie lu 別錄, should not have provided such an ascription, since Fajing did not ascribe to Kumārajīva any of the 31 titles that LDSBJ listed allegedly on the basis of the Bie lu. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that T123 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier.

Edit

326-409

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fenhetan wang jing 分惒檀王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a22. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 T129, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎.

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Qi fu jing 七婦經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17c10. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Yuye jing 玉耶經 T143, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭.

Edit

463

According to Hayashiya, there exist the following three alternative translations of the Da’aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 (“Sūtra on the parinirvāṇa of Mahāprajāpatī”), including the Da’aidao bannihuan jingitself, all of which are listed in CSZJJ:

--- Da’aidao bannihuan jing, an anonymous scripture, listed in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録;
--- Fomu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, listed in the “catalogue by dynasties” 代錄; and
--- Fomu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經, an anonymous scripture, listed in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄.

All three were extant at the time of Sengyou.

The Taishō has two texts in this group, which are:

--- Da’aidao bannihuan jing T144 ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖, and
--- Fomu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145 ascribed to Huijian 慧簡.

Regarding these ascriptions to 白法祖 and 慧簡, Hayashiya claims that both are first given by LDSBJ and are utterly groundless (515).

Accordingly, Hayashiya examines the vocabulary used in T144 and T145, and asserts that the two texts are rather old, and were most likely translated in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hayashiya also points out that the two texts to a considerable extent share vocabulary, because one of the two referred to the other during the translation process. Hayashiya thinks that probably T144 was produced first, and T145 referred to it later, although even if that were indeed the case, T145 would be still as old as the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. (In support of his claims, Hayashiya lists distinctive words and phrases used in T144 and T145 at 518-519.)

Hayashiya also argues that the titles of 大愛道般泥洹經 T144 and 佛母般泥洹經 T145 must have been switched. This is because T144 contains the phrase Fomu bannihuan 佛母般泥洹 but not Da’aidao 大愛道, while T145 contains all of the term Da’aidao 大愛道, Fomu 佛母, and bannihuan 般泥洹 (520).

Consequently, Hayashiya claims that T144 is the anonymous Fomu bannihuan jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures, and T145 is the Da’aidao bannihuan jing in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. The Fomu bannihuan jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng must have been lost at an early stage. According to Hayashiya, any other ascriptions and identifications given by the catalogues are incorrect.

Edit

513-523

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Shi meng jing 十夢經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出阿毘曇舊錄云舍衛國王十夢經或云波斯匿王十夢經或云舍衛國王夢見十事經或云國王不黎先泥十夢經悉同一本; 17b24-25. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Shewei guowang meng jian shi shi jing 舍衛國王夢見十事經 T146, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯; the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舍衛國王十夢經 T147, listed in the present canon (T) without attribution or date; and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不[𥠖 SYM]梨先[尼 SYM]泥十夢經 T148, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭.

Edit

462

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Taizi Xudana (? ru?) jing [太 SYM]大子須大挐[拏 SYM]經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17b23. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Taizi Xudana jing 太子須大拏經 T171, attributed in the present canon (T) to Sheng Jian 聖堅.

Edit

462

In the article about alternate translations of the Shanzi jing 睒子經 in his Iyakuykyōrui no kenkyū, Hayashiya maintains that the Pusa Shanzi jing 菩薩睒子經 T174, classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, and the Shanzi jing 睒子經 T175, ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅 (of the W. Jin period), are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them are probably products of the transmission processes (457-458). Hayashiya also offers a comparison of sample passages from T174 and T175 to show how similar they are to each other. According to Hayashiya, the presence of these two versions, differing so little from one another, in the canon originated in Yancong 仁壽錄, which included a Pusa Shan jing 菩薩睒經 that had not been listed in any previous catalogues, as well as the Shanzi jing, already listed by Dao’an. Judging mainly from the lengths of the texts recorded in Jingtai and other catalogues, Hayashiya infers that this Pusa Shan jing was actually T174, another version of T175 with only minor variations, which probably was around at the time of Yancong and regarded mistakenly as an independent text (469-472).

Hayashiya further points out that the Shanzi jing was listed in Dao’an’s catalogue as an anonymous scripture (with the name of Xiaozi Shan jing 孝子睒經), and that it was Fajing who first ascribed the text to Fajian 法堅 (written Shengjian 聖堅 in the Taishō). Based on a comparison between the tone and vocabulary of T175 and those of three other works of Fajian included in the Taishō (viz., the Taizi Xudamo jing 太子須大拏經 T171, the Furen yu gu jing 婦人遇辜經 T571, and the Yan dao su ye jing 演道俗業經 T820), Hayashiya accepts that T175 is most likely the work of Fajian (463-468). Thus, he asserts that T174 and T175 should be treated as one and the same text, translated by Fajian of the W. Jin period (475).

Referring to his own Kyōroku kenkyū, Hayashiya notes that Fajian 法堅, who was active in the W. Jin period, and Shengjian 聖堅, who was active under the reign of Qifu Gangui 乞伏乾歸 (a Xianbei 鮮卑 prince under the W. Qin 西秦, d. 412), are two different persons, although some catalogues regarded them as the same person and used the two names interchangeably. Due to such misidentification, LDSBJ ascribed the Shanzi jing 睒子經 to Shengjian 聖堅, noting that Shengjian was also called Fajian and was active in the period of Qifu Gangui. However, chronologically speaking, the Shanzi jing 睒子經 listed by Dao’an cannot belong to the period of Qifu Gangui, and thus should be the work of Fajian, who was active (earlier) in the W. Jin period (265–420 CE) (see Hayashiya 460-462).

Edit

455-476

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Jiu se lu jing 九色鹿經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17c15. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Jiu se lu jing 九色鹿經 T181, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhi Qian 支謙.

Edit

463

Hayashiya examines the identity and attributions of a number of titles that were dealt with as a Piyu jing 譬喩經 by the catalogues (Hayashiya limits his scope to those considered as independent works), which include seven texts surviving in the Taishō. Among those seven texts, Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the following five texts are incorrect or dubious: the Za piyu jing 雜讐喩經 T207; the Zhuan ji bai yuan jing 撰集百縁經 T200 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙; the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喩經 T206 ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會; the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 T204 ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖; and the Za piyun jing 雜譬喩經 T205 classified as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period.

Hayashiya’s argument about the Zhuan ji bai yuan jing 撰集百縁經 T200 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙 can be summarised as follows:

T200 has been listed in the catalogues since Fajing with an ascription to Zhi Qian. However, Hayashiya points out that the vocabulary and tone of T200 is not that of the Wei 魏 period, as it contains terms that appear after Kumārajīva, and the text should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Liu Song period (or at least after the Qin 秦 period) (287-288, 312-313).

Edit

216-325

Hayashiya examines the identity and attributions of a number of titles that were dealt with as a Piyu jing 譬喩經 by the catalogues (Hayashiya limits his scope to those considered as independent works), which include seven texts surviving in the Taishō. Among those seven texts, Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the following five texts are incorrect or dubious: the Za piyu jing 雜讐喩經 T207; the Zhuan ji bai yuan jing 撰集百縁經 T200 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙; the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喩經 T206 ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會; the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 T204 ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖; and the Za piyun jing 雜譬喩經 T205 classified as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period.

Hayashiya’s argument about the Za piyun jing 雜譬喩經 T205, classified as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period, can be summarised as follows:

According to Hayashiya, T205, also called the Pusa du ren jing 菩薩度人經, first appeared in CSZJJ with no classifications. It was LDSBJ that first classified it as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period. Hayashiya rejects that classification as groundless. He then examines the vocabulary and tone of the text and judges that it is not older than the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. He concludes that further analysis is needed to give the more accurate period of translation, but for the moment, T205 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or later.

Edit

216-325

Hayashiya examines the identity and attributions of a number of titles that were dealt with as a Piyu jing 譬喩經 by the catalogues (Hayashiya limits his scope to those considered as independent works), which include seven texts surviving in the Taishō. Among those seven texts, Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the following five texts are incorrect or dubious: the Za piyu jing 雜讐喩經 T207; the Zhuan ji bai yuan jing 撰集百縁經 T200 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙; the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喩經 T206 ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會; the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 T204 ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖; and the Za piyun jing 雜譬喩經 T205 classified as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period.

Hayashiya’s argument about the Za piyu jing 雜讐喩經 T207 can be summarised as follows:

Although KYL ascribed T207 to Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, there also exists the Zhongjing zhuan za piyu jing 衆經撰雜譬喩 T208, also ascribed to Kumārajīva. Hayashiya thinks that only one of these is Kumārajīva’s work, and states that it remains uncertain which one is the authentic Kumārajīva work (310).

Edit

216-325

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Xiao xulai jing 小須賴經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18a20. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (Cf., however, T328 and T329.)

Edit

465

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Taizi hexiu jing 太子和休經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云私休經; 18a12. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Taizi hexiu jing 太子和休經 T344, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

464

According to Hayashiya, the Xiang ye jing 象腋經 T814 (Hastikakṣyā-sūtra) was listed first in Fajing with no ascription. Hayashiya maintains that this text was translated in the Song-Qi 宋齊 period, since it did not appear in CSZJJ (438-439), that the ascription of it to *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多 shown in the Taishō is most likely to be incorrect, and the text should be reclassified as an anonymous sūtra. The gist of Hayashiya’s argument can be shown as follows:

The ascription of 814 to Dharmamitra was first given by LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM, KYL, and the Taishō. In LDSBJ, 6 titles are newly ascribed to Dharmamitra, including the Xiang ye jing. Hayashiya examines LDSBJ’s claim that the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄 (Wei shi zhongjing mulu 魏世衆經目錄) ascribed those titles to Dharmamitra, and rejects the claim as highly unlikely, because if there had been such ascriptions in Li Kuo’s catalogue, Fajing would have mentioned them (446-447). Hayahiya then compares six existing texts ascribed to Dharmamitra (listed below), two of which have been ascribed to him since CSZJJ, the others being ascribed to him first by LDSBJ:

Ascribed to Dharmamitra by CSZJJ
Guan Puxian pusa xingfa jing 觀普賢菩薩行法經 T277
Guan Xukongzang pusa jing 觀虚空藏菩薩經 T409

Ascribed to Dharmamitra by LDSBJ
Xukongzang pusa shenzhou jing 虚空藏菩薩神呪經 T407
Zhuan nü shen jing 轉女身經 T564
Xiang ye jing 象腋經 T814
Zhufayong wang jing 諸法勇王經 T822

Hayahiya claims that texts translated after the time of Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, such as these ones, use largely similar vocabulary to one another, since Kumārajīva largely standardised the terms used in scriptural translations. This being the case, it is not easy to tell anything significant about the ascription of these texts from vocabulary alone, except that they were translated probably in the same period (447-448). However, Hayashiya further examines the details of tone in those texts and concludes that the four texts ascribed to Dharmamitra by LDSBJ (T407, T564, T814, T822) are written with a different tone from T277 and T409, and therefore should not be treated as his works. Although Hayashiya does not exclude the possibility that one or two of the four texts ascribed to Dharmamitra by LDSBJ do happen to be authentic, he asserts that, since LDSBJ does not provide any source or evidence for the ascriptions, it is much more reasonable to reclassify those texts, including T814, as anonymous scriptures of the Song-Qi 宋齊 period (448-450).

Edit

436-454

Hayashiya argues that, of 6 texts in a group of Maitreya scriptures included in the Taisho, the Mile xia sheng jing 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is in fact part of the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 ascribed to *Saṃghadeva 僧伽提婆. (The “group of Maitreya scriptures” refers to the texts that describe Maitreya as a future Buddha and the heaven Maitreya resides in, and also other titles related to them.) Hayashiya’s discussion on T453 can be summarised as follows:

Hayashiya asserts that the Maitreya text translated by Dharmarakṣa existed, but it is not the current T453. According to him, T453 is actually Ekottarikāgama 48.3. Hayashiya points out that the ascription of T453 to Dharmarakṣa was already considered dubious by the editor of the Korean edition of the canon 麗本, who stated that the text was probably anonymous. Tokiwa agrees with this view. However, Hayashiya claims that since T453 is taken from the *Ekottarikāgama, it is not anonymous (following the traditional ascription of T125 as a whole to *Saṃghadeva, Hayashiya ascribes this text, too, to *Saṃghadeva). Hayashiya thinks that the identity of T453 and Ekottarikāgama 48.3 went unnoticed because it was not easy to predict that the content of a Mahāyāna text would be identical with that of an Āgama scripture (142-143). Hayashiya speculates that such use of an Āgama scripture was possible because the tale of Maitreya described in the text is shared by both the mainstream and the Mahāyāna schools, probably originating from sometime even before the Āgamas were produced.

The text about Maitreya translated by Dharmarakṣa is recorded in Dao’an’s catalogue, with the title Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經. Hayashiya points out that Dao’an is especially reliable in this case, since he was one of initial advocates of the idea of rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven (兜率往生思想), and hence is likely to have paid special attention to the texts related to Maitreya. Sengyou also saw the text.

The Mile cheng Fo jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is listed as extant in the catalogues following CSZJJ. KYL then records it as a lost scripture, and appears again in the Taishō wrongly in the form of “*Saṃghadeva’s” *Ekottarikāgama. The scenario Hayashiya presents as most plausible in explaining such a record is this: The Mile cheng Fo jing was lost by the time of Yancong, but still continued listed in the catalogues probably because the text was confused with the text of the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 T456 ascribed to Kumārajīva (thus, Yancong and Jingtai list a Mile cheng Fo jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, while excising Kumārajīv’s Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經, i.e. T456). Zhisheng 智昇 noticed the mistake in the foregoing catalogues and correctly reclassified the Mile cheng Fo jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa as lost. Hayashiya claims that, since there is no other text in the group similar in length to T456 and to Dharmarakṣa’s Mile cheng Fo jing listed in the foregoing catalogues (viz., roughly seventeen sheets in KYL), it is not easy to come up with any other possibility that adequately explains the record that there were two Mile cheng Fo jing texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and Kumārajīva in different catalogues after CSZJJ (210-213). (Hayashiya does not try to explain why part of the *Ekottarikāgama was included in the Taishō as T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.)

(In support of his claims, Hayashiya lists detailed differences between T453, T454, T456, and T457 in length at 149-171.)

Edit

141-215

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Anan ba meng jing 阿難八夢經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云阿難七夢經眾錄並[云七 SYM]云夢是誤作八字[－ SYM]也; 17c13. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Anan qi meng jing 阿難七夢經 T494, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭.

Edit

463

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Weishengyuan jing 未生怨經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17c7. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Weishengyuan jing [未生怨 SYMP]未生冤經 T507, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhi Qian 支謙.

Edit

462

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Da xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 今有諫王經一卷未詳大小; 17b1. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Jian wang jing 諫王經 T514, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲.

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zhantuoyue guowang jing 旃陀越國王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17b4. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Zhantuoyue guowang jing 旃陀越國王經 T518, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲.

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fanmonan wang jing 梵摩難王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17b10. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Fanmonan guowang jing 梵摩難國王經 T521, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Shi jing 逝經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云菩薩逝經; 17a15. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 T528, attributed in the present canon (T) to Bai Fazu 白法祖.

Edit

459

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 16c24. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (However, cf. T534.)

Edit

458

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Shenri jing 申日經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出中阿含; 16c23. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Shenri jing 申日經 T535, attributed in the present canon (T) to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護.

Edit

458

According to Hayashiya, there exist only three alternate translations of the Shenri jing 申日經:

Yueguang tongzi jing/Yueming tongzi jing 月光童子經/月明童子經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa;
Shenri jing 申日經, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier; and
Shenri er benjing 申日兒本經, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier.

The first two of these are listed by Dao’an, and the third first appears in the recompilation of the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄of CSZJJ (with a mistaken title Shenri dou benjing 申日兜本經 given by Sengyou). Although there is one more text in the group, Shiliyue jing 失利越經, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier, Hayashiya points out that this text was already lost at the time of Sengyou and has not been found since. Hayashiya maintains that any other ascriptions or texts appear in the catalogues are incorrect or redundant and should be excised (for example, LDSBJ ascribes the Shenri jing to Zhi Qian, and a Shendou ben jing 申兜本經 = Shenri er ben jing 申日兒本經 to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, but Hayashiya rejects both of these ascriptions as groundless.)

In the Taishō, there exist the following three texts:

Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa
Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa
Shenri er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra

Hayashiya compares the style and vocabulary of these texts with the Sheng jing 生經 T154, a text that he regards as an established Dharmarakṣa translation, in order to see which one of the three is really Dharmarakṣa’s work. Based on this comparison, Hayashiya asserts that T534 is indeed the work of Dharmarakṣa, because T534 and T154 share quite a few words and phrases, including 聞如是, 世尊, 與大比丘衆, 慈悲喜護, and 無常苦空非身 (Hayashiya lists detailed differences between 生經, T534, T535, and T536 in length at 430-432). Hayashiya admits that there is a problem in identifying Dharmarakṣa’s work, which is that his vocabulary can vary according to the year of production and amanuenses, and that T534, as well as T535 and T536, contain a number of words and phrases that never appear in any other Mahāyāna texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Nonetheless, Hayashiya argues that T534 is Dharmarakṣa’s work, because the positive match of the vocabulary is good enough, and the text has been consistently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa since Jingtai (422-423). According to Hayashiya, it is also slightly odd that the name Yueming 月明 does not appear in T534, since the original title of the text was Yueming tongzi jing 月明童子經, as listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. However, it does not affect the ascription of the text because there is no other candidate for the Yueguang tongzi jing/Yueming tongzi jing.

Hayashiya asserts that T535 and T536 are also translations of the W. Jin period or earlier, based on the textual comparison. Further, he claims that T535 is most likely to have originally been entitled Shenri er ben jing, while T536 should have been called Shenri jing 申日經, since the former focuses on Shenri’s 申日 son 兒, and the latter on Shenri himself. Hayashiya thinks that the ascriptions that the Taishō gives to T535 and T536 are incorrect. The ascription of T535 to Dharmarakṣa is to be rejected since there is only one work of Dharmarakṣa in the group recorded in the foregoing catalogues, namely T534. The ascription of T536 to Guṇabhadra comes from LDSBJ, as mentioned above, and is groundless. Thus, according to Hayashiya, the correct titles and ascriptions of T534, T535, and T536 are as follows:

T534: Dharmarakṣa;
T535: anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier; and
T536: anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier.

Edit

410-435

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Seng da jing 僧大經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云佛大僧大經; 17a27. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Fo da seng da jing 佛大僧大經 T541, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲.

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云辯意長者經; 17b26. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Bianyi zhangzhezi jing 辯意長者[子所問 SYMP]子經 T544, attributed in the present canon (T) to Fachang 法場.

Edit

462

Hayashiya argues that judging from its tone and vocabulary, the Modeng nü jie xing zhong liu shi jing 摩登女解形中六事經 T552 (*Mātaṅgī-sūtra), classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period, is actually a work of the W. Jin period or earlier (527-528).

According to Hayashiya, the classification of T552 as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period was girst given by KYL, without any grounds, and then followed by the Taishō. However, that classification is baseless. Thus, T552 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier (340-341).

[According to Hayashiya, in the Taishō there are four texts that can be categorized as the Modeng nü jing group, viz. the Modeng nü jing and its alternate translations. Only one of them is given the correct ascription, viz., the Shetoulian taizi ershiba xiu jing 舍頭諌太子二十八宿經 T1301 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. The ascriptions and classifications given to the other three, via. T551, the Modeng nü jie xing zhong liu shi jing 摩登女解形中六事經 T552, classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period, and the Modengjia jing 摩登伽經 T1300, ascribed to Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎 and Zhi Qian 支謙, are incorrect and should be rejected (541-542).]

Edit

524-543

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Wugou xian jing 無垢賢經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云無垢賢女經; 17a13. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Wugou xiannü jing 無垢賢女經 T562, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Fahu 竺法護.

Edit

459

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Tai zhong nü jing 胎中女經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 一名腹中女聽經或云阿羅呵公女腹中聽經; 18a17. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Fu zhong nü ting jing 腹中女聽經 T563, attributed in the present canon (T) to Dharmakṣema 曇無讖.

Edit

465

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fu yu dui jing 婦遇對經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云婦人遇辜經或云婦遇辜經; 17c18. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Furen yu gu jing 婦人遇辜經 T571, attributed in the present canon (T) to Shengjian 聖堅.

Edit

463

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Hei shi fanzhi jing 黑氏梵志經is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a8. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Hei shi fanzhi jing 黑氏梵志經 T583, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhi Qian 支謙.

Edit

459

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Chanxing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 16c21. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Chanxing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 T604, attributed in the present canon (T) to An Shigao 安世高.

Edit

458

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fang bo jing 放鉢經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出方等部; 18b13. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Fang bo jing 放鉢經 T629, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

466

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Xiaozi bao en jing 孝子報恩經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 一名孝子經; 17c2. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Xiaozi jing 孝子經 T687, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

462

In the Taishō, no ascription is given to the Dasheng daoyu jing 大乘稻芋經 T712 (*Śālistamba-sūtra/*Śālistambhaka-sūtra). Hayashiya examines the tone and vocabulary of the text and maintains that they are influenced by Xuanzang 玄奘, although it is not a work of Xuanzang himself because there are differences in some of the vocabulary, such as 比丘, for which Xuanzang would have used 苾芻. Hayashiya also states that T712 is not influenced by Amoghavajra 不空, since T712 uses the word 稻芋 instead of Amoghavajra’s 稻𦼮. In addition, Hayashiya points out the fact that T712 was found at Dunhuang 敦煌. For these reasons, he concludes that T712 is an anonymous scripture produced near the end of the Tang period (388).

Edit

326-409

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出阿毘曇; 17b17. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (However, cf. T729.)

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a10. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Eduoheduoqi jing 頞多和多耆經 T740, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

459

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zi’ai bu zi’ai jing 自愛不自愛經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云自愛經; 17c4. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Zi’ai jing 自愛經 T742, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭.

Edit

462

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. In this list, the Wu fude jing 五福德經 is listed as extant 有; 17a20. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Shishi huo wu fubao jing 食施獲五福報經T132, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zhi shen jing 治身經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云佛治身經餘錄並同; 17b15. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Zhi shen jing 治身經 T795, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Jin xue jing 進學經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云勸進學道經; 17b8. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Jin xue jing 進學經 T798, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲.

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fa chang zhu jing 法常住經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a28. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Fa chang zhu jing 法常住經 T819, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

460

According to Hayashiya, the Anantuo muqia niheli tuo (sic) jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (*Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī) T1013 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 and the Anantuomuqia niheli tuolinni jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 T1015 (*Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī) ascribed to Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 should be regarded as one and the same text, and reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. The reasons for this claim are as follows.

First, Hayashiya points out that the differences between T1013 and T1015 are too minor to regard them as different texts. He compares the two texts and maintains that, except for one notable difference, viz., T1015 uses both transliteration and translation for the names of the 48 dhāraṇī, while T1013 uses only translation for them, all the differences between them are non-essential ones produced in the process of transmission. Even that difference regarding the names of dhāraṇī is best explained as being caused by T1015 simply omitting the transliteration of the names in T1013, since the translations of the names in the two texts are exactly the same (123-124).

Second, Hayashiya maintains that the tone and vocabulary of T1013 and T1015 are clearly of the W. Jin period or earlier, and hence cannot be the work of Guṇabhadra or Buddhaśānta (124). Hayashiya points out that the ascription of an *Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 to Buddhaśānta was first seen in Fajing, who gave no reasons (as Fajing generally does not show the sources of his ascriptions), and that the ascription of the Anantuo muqia niheli tuo jing to Guṇabhadra was first given by LDSBJ, also without specifying any reasons (130). Thus, those two ascriptions can safely be rejected.

Further, Hayashiya argues that this text is actually the Muqia jing 目佉經 listed in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經錄. This is because, he explains, the Muqia jing was considered as a lost scripture in many catalogues since CSZJJ (and neither T1013 or T1015 was listed in Dao’an’s catalogue), while among the group of alternate translations of the Weimichi jing 微密持經, the term muqia 目佉 appears only in T1013 and T1015. Based on these considerations, Hayashiya asserts that T1013 and T1015 are one and the same text, and should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier.

Edit

115-140

According to Hayashiya, the ascription of the Modengjia jing 摩登伽經 (*Mātaṅgī-sūtra) to Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎 and Zhi Qian 支謙 was first given by DZKZM, followed by KYL and the Taishō. Hayashiya maintains that the ascription is incorrect because, although DZKZM cites the “Dharmottara catalogue” 達摩欝多羅錄 as the source, the tone and vocabulary of T1300 are clearly not that of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, but rather, of or later than Kumārajīva’s time (539-540). Thus, he concludes that T1300 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Song-Qi 宋齊 period or later (541).

[According to Hayashiya, in the Taishō there are four texts that can be categorized as the Modeng nü jing group, viz. the Modeng nü jing and its alternate translations. Only one of them is given the correct ascription, viz., the Shetoulian taizi ershiba xiu jing 舍頭諌太子二十八宿經 T1301 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. The ascriptions and classifications given to the other three, via. T551, the Modeng nü jie xing zhong liu shi jing 摩登女解形中六事經 T552, classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period, and the Modengjia jing 摩登伽經T1300, ascribed to Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎 and Zhi Qian 支謙, are incorrect and should be rejected (541-542).]

Edit

524-543

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Wu kongbu shi jing 五恐怖世經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云五恐怖經; 17b7. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Wu kongbu shi jing 五恐怖世經 T1481, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲.

Edit

461

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fanhuang jing 梵皇經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云梵摩皇經; 17a25. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (However, cf. T152(91).)

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Jiazhan ji 迦旃[偈經 SYM]偈 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云比丘迦旃說法沒偈經或云迦旃延說法沒盡偈百二十章; 18a3-4. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Fo shi biqiu Jiazhanyan shuo fa mojin ji bai'ershi zhang 佛使比丘迦旃延說法沒盡[偈一 SYP; 偈經 M]偈百二十章 T2029, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯.

Edit

464

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Weiliu wang jing 惟留王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云惟流王經; 18a22. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

465

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Wubai fanzhi jing 五百梵志經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a26. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

460

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Xiao wu zhuo jing 小五濁經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云小五濁世經或云五濁世經或云五濁世本; 17c26. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

464

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Yi Liao ben shengsi jing 異了本生死經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b4. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

466

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Si hui yu jing 四虺喻經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出中阿含舊錄云四虺經或作四蛇經; 17b20. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon.

Edit

462