Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Sengyou's catalogue of asserted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 lists a text entitled Analü qi nian zhang jing 阿那律七念章經. Some later catalogues regarded this as identical with the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經. However, both texts were extant at the time of Sengyou, so they should be regarded as different texts. |
802-803 |
Sengyou's catalogue of asserted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 lists a text entitled Analu qi nian zhang jing 阿那律七念章經. Some later catalogues regarded this as identical with the Analu ba nian jing 阿那律八念經. However, both texts were extant at the time of Sengyou, so they should be regarded as different texts. Analu qi nian zhang jing 阿那律七念章經 |
|
Hayashiya suggests that the Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 by Sengyou in CSZJJ may in fact be the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 T122, because at the end of T122 the Buddha gives the text the name Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 [世尊告曰：名除憂患經，此法除去憂患, T122 (II) 546a1-2]. Hayashiya states that he hopes to explore this possibility further when he has a chance to work more on CSZJJ. |
734-740 |
Hayashiya suggests that the Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 by Sengyou in CSZJJ may in fact be the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 T122, because at the end of T122 the Buddha gives the text the name Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 [世尊告曰:名除憂患經,此法除去憂患, T122 (II) 546a1-2]. Hayashiya states that he hopes to explore this possibility further when he has a chance to work more on CSZJJ. Bai Yan, 白延 Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 |
|
282-304 |
Dharmaraksa catalogue 竺法護錄 | |
In his Kyōroku kenkyū, Hayashiya examines the characteristics of the Dharmarakṣa catalogue 竺法護錄 and the Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄. His overall claim is that the two are probably one and the same catalogue, which records the translation works of Dharmarakṣa in a simple manner. His discussion of the two titles can be summarized as follows: The two catalogues (282-284) According to Hayashiya, it was common to make catalogues of individual translators’ works from early times, especially of translators who translated a large number of scriptures. Those catalogues were most commonly compiled by the translator himself or an amanuensis 筆受, in order to keep good records of the translator’s works, and to praise the translator for those works. Such catalogues were called the Catalogues of Tripiṭaka Translations 三蔵翻譯目錄, and were regarded as the most reliable sources in compiling catalogues in later times. There are two titles recorded in the literature as catalogues of Dharmarakṣa’s translation works: the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” 竺法護錄 and “Nie Daozhen’s catalogue” 聶道眞錄. If they were indeed different catalogues, the Dharmarakṣa catalogue is most likely to have been compiled by Dharmarakṣa himself, as the record of his own works, and Nie Daozhen’s catalogue to have been compiled by Daozhen, who worked as amanuensis in Dharmarakṣa’s translation team, in order to record Dharmarakṣa’s works for later generations to acknowledge his contribution to the tradition. (Hayashiya adds that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was, by contrast, not a catalogue of Nie Daozhen’s own translation works, the existence of which is a matter of debate, since even LDSBJ, a catalogue that lists scriptures ascribed to Nie Daozhen and his father Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠, does not once cite Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 as a source for those works.) Subsequently, Hayashiya points out that the Dharmarakṣa catalogue is never cited in any catalogue, although some catalogues include a description of it. In contrast, Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is cited many times in LDSBJ and other catalogues after it. Moreover, Dao’an’s catalogue also appears to rely on Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, and not the Dharmarakṣa catalogue, as will be explained below. Hayashiya aims to show that the Dharmarakṣa catalogue and Nie Daozhen’s catalogue are one and the same, by examining the way they are used in LDSBJ and other catalogues The Dharmarakṣa catalogue (284-285) The full title of the Dharmarakṣa catalogue 1 juan (missing 缺) is Xi Jin shamen Zhu Fahu zhongjing mulu 西晋沙門竺法護衆經目錄 (“Catalogue of the scriptures [by] the śramaṇera Dharmarakṣa ‘the Indian’ of the Western Jin”). LDSBJ lists this title at the end of the list of scriptures ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, calling it Zhongjing mulu 衆經錄目, while using the title Dharmarakṣa catalogue elsewhere. Datang neidian lu 内典録 states of the same title that Dharmarakṣa was “a śramaṇera of the Great Temple outside Qingmen [gate] in Chang’an under Wudi of the Jin who translated a great wealth of scriptures, and therefore, a catalogue of his [works] was issued” 晋武帝長安青門外大寺沙門也、翻經極廣、因出其録. Zhisheng and 圓照 use this description in their catalogues as well. Hayashiya points out that on the basis of these records, it is uncertain whether such catalogue actually existed, because it had already long been missing, and no catalogue cites it as the source of any ascriptions. (Hayashiya admits that it is a possibility that Dharmarakṣa wanted to have a catalogue of his own work and compiled one, since, as recorded in CSZJJ, Dharmarakṣa translated over a hundred scriptures, and it would not have been easy for him to remember them all. ) Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (285-304) Nie Daozhen’s catalogue as recorded in catalogues (285-296) Hayashiya points out that the above description in DTNDL is unreliable, because Nie Daozhen’s catalogue had already gone missing at the time of Daoxuan 道宣, and because the description seems to be based only on a passage in LDSBJ (285-286). Furthermore, the Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳 does not mention any translation work by Daozhen. Thus, Hayashiya next asks if Daozhen in fact translated any scriptures. According to him, quite a few modern scholars, such as Sakaino, maintain that Daozhen did not translate any scriptures. However, Hayashiya argues that by far the most popular evidence for this view, viz., the fact that CSZJJ does not ascribe any scriptures to Daozhen, is actually indecisive. First, Sengyou tends not to add much to the sections Dao’an has already worked on; second, Dao’an’s catalogue does not include scriptures translated in and after the E. Jin period, so scriptures translated by Daozhen would not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue even if they existed (287). Hayashiya adds that one point indirectly supports the existence of translation works by Daozhen: since Nie Chengyuan 承遠, Daozhen’s father, modified some of the scriptures translated by Dharmarakṣa, it can reasonably be hypothesized that Daozhen also worked further on Dharmarakṣa’s translations. LDSBJ lists three scriptures ascribed to Nie Chengyuan: the Chaoriming sanmei jing 超日明三昧經 T638, the Jiaye jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經 1 juan (lost), and the Yuenan jing 越難經 T537. Among these, T638 is included in CSZJJ; Sengyou records that Dharmarakṣa translated a version of this text, but it was difficult to read, so Nie Chengyuan reworked it. The Jiaye jie Anan jing and T537 are classified as anonymous in CSZJJ, and ascribed to Nie Chengyuan by LDSBJ. Hayashiya maintains that Nie Daozhen might have also worked on some of Dharmarakṣa’s translations like his father did, and suggests that titles ascribed to Nie Daozhen by Fei could be modifications of Dharmarakṣa’s works. For example: 諸佛要集經 2 juan: Dharmarakṣa諸佛要集經 2 juan Hayashiya claims further that, judging from records of Nie Daozhen’s activities, it is not unreasonable to think that he translated even more scriptures. Although there were some amanuenses 筆受 who did not know Sanskrit very well, they appeared only in and after the time of Kumārajīva, and Nie Daozhen probably had a good knowledge of Sanskrit, as he worked with Dharmarakṣa for a long time. Furthermore, Dharmarakṣa engaged in translating for as long as 42 years, and must have left translations only partially finished, or had plans for more translations when he passed away (289). Hayashiya emphasizes that it is quite different to maintain that Nie Daozhen might have had his own translation works, and to accept the ascriptions to him in LDSBJ. In defending the possibility that Nie Daozhen did indeed produce translations, Hayashiya only means that the vehement denial by some modern scholars that Nie Daozhen translated any scriptures is not well-founded, and not that we have any way of determining that extant texts are in fact such translations (289-290). Hayashiya adds that even if translation works by Nie Daozhen did exist, that would also not necessarily mean, as DTNDL claims, that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was a catalogue listing his own works. Titles for which Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is cited in LDSBJ (listed 290-294) do not include any ascribed to Nie Daozhen himself. However, neither does this prove that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue did not include any titles ascribed to Nie Daozhen, as Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was missing by the time of LDSBJ, and Fei must have obtained information about it via some other source. Still, Hayashiya claims, it is highly likely that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was actually a catalogue of Dharmarakṣa’s works compiled by Nie Daozhen (290-295). Hayashiya also points out that among the titles for which Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is cited in LDSBJ, three are not ascribed to Dharmarakṣa: two are ascribed to Lokakṣema, and one to Zhi Qian. Hayashiya maintains that those cases do not contradict his view that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is a catalogue of Dharmarakṣa’s works, since a small number of such odd entries could have been made by the people who used the catalogue, rather than by Nie Daozhen himself (295). Content of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (296-302) Among titles for which LDSBJ cites Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, 56 are ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. 55 (excepting the 師子月佛本生經 T176) are already ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in CSZJJ. Hayashiya discusses three issues that might affect the credibility of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue: 1. Why are the Achamo jing 阿差末經 and Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (both referring to the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa) listed separately? Hayashiya admits that such an error could make us doubt whether Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was really compiled by Nie Daozhen, since it is highly unlikely that Dharmarakṣa’s amanuensis would make such a mistake. However, Hayashiya argues that this error can be explained as follows: Since Nie Daozhen’s catalogue had gone missing by the time of Fei, he must have referred to different catalogues separately containing information from Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, one listing 阿差末經 and another listing 無盡意經 and not have known that there was only one text (297-298). 3. Why does LDSBJ ascribe T176 to Dharmarakṣa, citing Nie Daozhen’s catalogue? However, Hayashiya maintains that this information can be explained as follows: It is implausible that Fei fabricated the description of the Nie Daozhen catalogue, and citations from it, for just one text, namely T176, which is not an important scripture. It is more plausible that the incorrect ascription was added during in the transmission process: for example, somebody might have written the title 師子月佛本生經 down in the margin of a copy of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue ,and it was later mistaken as part of the catalogue itself; or Fei might have simply cited incorrectly. We can reasonably assume that the ascription of T176 to Dharmarakṣa was not in Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (299-300). Hayashiya asserts that it is safe to say that the other 54 titles were indeed recorded in Nie Daozhen’s catalogue. Since records from Nie Daozhen’s catalogue in LDSBJ were merely collected by Fei from other catalogues available in his time, it is probable that another 100-odd scriptures were originally listed in Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (300). Hayashiya maintains that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue probably did not provide the dates of translation. LDSBJ often provides the translation date in the entries citing Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, which gives the impression that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is the source of those dates, but Hayashiya claims this is wrong, referring to his own “Jiku Hōgo yakukyō no kenkyū 竺法護譯經の研究”. Dao’an provides a date for only twenty scriptures ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (nine of which are probably based on colophons). If the source of these dates was Nie Daozhen, there should have been more, because as amanuensis 筆受, Nie Daozhen would have recorded the translation date of most of the scriptures listed (300-301). Relation between Nie Daozhen’s catalogue and Dao’an’s catalogue (302-304) If Nie Daozhen’s catalogue and the Dharmarakṣa catalogue were two different catalogues, Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was more likely to be the one referred to by Dao’an, for two reasons: 1. Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was probably cited frequently in catalogues prior to LDSBJ, as Fei cited it for as many as 59 titles, while the Dharmarakṣa catalogue was probably not cited in any of those catalogues, since Fei does not mention it. 2. All 54 scriptures correctly ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in LDSBJ, citing Nie Daozhen, are included in Dao’an. This is more than one third of the scriptures Dao’an ascribes to Dharmarakṣa (303). However, it is more reasonable to regard Nie Daozhen’s catalogue and the Dharmarakṣa catalogue as one and the same. It is too peculiar to suppose that there were two catalogues with the very similar contents (303-304). |
282-304 |
In his Kyoroku kenkyu, Hayashiya examines the characteristics of the Dharmaraksa catalogue 竺法護錄 and the Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄. His overall claim is that the two are probably one and the same catalogue, which records the translation works of Dharmaraksa in a simple manner. His discussion of the two titles can be summarized as follows: The two catalogues (282-284) According to Hayashiya, it was common to make catalogues of individual translators’ works from early times, especially of translators who translated a large number of scriptures. Those catalogues were most commonly compiled by the translator himself or an amanuensis 筆受, in order to keep good records of the translator’s works, and to praise the translator for those works. Such catalogues were called the Catalogues of Tripitaka Translations 三蔵翻譯目錄, and were regarded as the most reliable sources in compiling catalogues in later times. There are two titles recorded in the literature as catalogues of Dharmaraksa’s translation works: the “Dharmaraksa catalogue” 竺法護錄 and “Nie Daozhen’s catalogue” 聶道眞錄. If they were indeed different catalogues, the Dharmaraksa catalogue is most likely to have been compiled by Dharmaraksa himself, as the record of his own works, and Nie Daozhen’s catalogue to have been compiled by Daozhen, who worked as amanuensis in Dharmaraksa’s translation team, in order to record Dharmaraksa’s works for later generations to acknowledge his contribution to the tradition. (Hayashiya adds that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was, by contrast, not a catalogue of Nie Daozhen’s own translation works, the existence of which is a matter of debate, since even LDSBJ, a catalogue that lists scriptures ascribed to Nie Daozhen and his father Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠, does not once cite Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 as a source for those works.) Subsequently, Hayashiya points out that the Dharmaraksa catalogue is never cited in any catalogue, although some catalogues include a description of it. In contrast, Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is cited many times in LDSBJ and other catalogues after it. Moreover, Dao’an’s catalogue also appears to rely on Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, and not the Dharmaraksa catalogue, as will be explained below. Hayashiya offers three possible explanations for this absence of the Dharmaraksa catalogue as a source of ascriptions: 1) the Dharmaraksa catalogue had already gone missing as early as the time of Dao’an; 2) the Dharmaraksa catalogue was a simple record made by Dharmaraksa, and as such, it contained much less information than Nie Daozhen’s catalogue ; and 3) the Dharmaraksa catalogue and Nie Daozhen’s catalogue are actually one and the same catalogue. (Hayashiya himself favours (3).) Hayashiya aims to show that the Dharmaraksa catalogue and Nie Daozhen’s catalogue are one and the same, by examining the way they are used in LDSBJ and other catalogues The Dharmaraksa catalogue (284-285) The full title of the Dharmaraksa catalogue 1 juan (missing 缺) is Xi Jin shamen Zhu Fahu zhongjing mulu 西晋沙門竺法護衆經目錄 (“Catalogue of the scriptures [by] the sramanera Dharmaraksa ‘the Indian’ of the Western Jin”). LDSBJ lists this title at the end of the list of scriptures ascribed to Dharmaraksa, calling it Zhongjing mulu 衆經錄目, while using the title Dharmaraksa catalogue elsewhere. Datang neidian lu 内典録 states of the same title that Dharmaraksa was “a sramanera of the Great Temple outside Qingmen [gate] in Chang’an under Wudi of the Jin who translated a great wealth of scriptures, and therefore, a catalogue of his [works] was issued” 晋武帝長安青門外大寺沙門也、翻經極廣、因出其録. Zhisheng and 圓照 use this description in their catalogues as well. Hayashiya points out that on the basis of these records, it is uncertain whether such catalogue actually existed, because it had already long been missing, and no catalogue cites it as the source of any ascriptions. (Hayashiya admits that it is a possibility that Dharmaraksa wanted to have a catalogue of his own work and compiled one, since, as recorded in CSZJJ, Dharmaraksa translated over a hundred scriptures, and it would not have been easy for him to remember them all. ) Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (285-304) Nie Daozhen’s catalogue as recorded in catalogues (285-296) The full title of the Dharmaraksa catalogue 1 juan (missing 缺) is Xi Jin qingxinshi Nie Daozhen zhongjing lu 西晋清信士聶道眞衆經録 (“Catalogue of scriptures [of] the pious layman Nie Daozhen of the W. Jin”). LDSBJ lists it in the section of scriptures ascribed to Nie Daozhen, calling it Zhongjing mulu 衆經錄目, while using the title Nie Daozhen lu (聶道眞錄一巻晋時) elsewhere. Datang neidian lu states of Nie Daozhen that he was “a scribe who took down [translations] from the noble Dharmaraksa during the Yongjia era of Huidi of the Jin, and subsequently translated scriptures himself, for which reason a catalogue was issued” 晋惠帝永嘉中、禀受護公之筆匠也、後自翻經、因出録云. Zhisheng and Yuanzhao 圓照 used this description in their catalogues as well. Hayashiya points out that the above description in DTNDL is unreliable, because Nie Daozhen’s catalogue had already gone missing at the time of Daoxuan 道宣, and because the description seems to be based only on a passage in LDSBJ (285-286). Furthermore, the Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳 does not mention any translation work by Daozhen. Thus, Hayashiya next asks if Daozhen in fact translated any scriptures. According to him, quite a few modern scholars, such as Sakaino, maintain that Daozhen did not translate any scriptures. However, Hayashiya argues that by far the most popular evidence for this view, viz., the fact that CSZJJ does not ascribe any scriptures to Daozhen, is actually indecisive. First, Sengyou tends not to add much to the sections Dao’an has already worked on; second, Dao’an’s catalogue does not include scriptures translated in and after the E. Jin period, so scriptures translated by Daozhen would not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue even if they existed (287). Hayashiya adds that one point indirectly supports the existence of translation works by Daozhen: since Nie Chengyuan 承遠, Daozhen’s father, modified some of the scriptures translated by Dharmaraksa, it can reasonably be hypothesized that Daozhen also worked further on Dharmaraksa’s translations. LDSBJ lists three scriptures ascribed to Nie Chengyuan: the Chaoriming sanmei jing 超日明三昧經 T638, the Jiaye jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經 1 juan (lost), and the Yuenan jing 越難經 T537. Among these, T638 is included in CSZJJ; Sengyou records that Dharmaraksa translated a version of this text, but it was difficult to read, so Nie Chengyuan reworked it. The Jiaye jie Anan jing and T537 are classified as anonymous in CSZJJ, and ascribed to Nie Chengyuan by LDSBJ. Hayashiya maintains that Nie Daozhen might have also worked on some of Dharmaraksa’s translations like his father did, and suggests that titles ascribed to Nie Daozhen by Fei could be modifications of Dharmaraksa’s works. For example: 諸佛要集經 2 juan: Dharmaraksa諸佛要集經 2 juan 觀世音授記經 1 juan: Dharmaraksa光世音大勢至受決經 1 juan 菩薩受齋經 1 juan: Dharmaraksa菩薩齋法經 1 juan 溥首童眞經 1 juan: Dharmaraksa普首童經 1 juan 菩薩縁身五十事經 1 juan: Dharmaraksa五十縁身行經 1 juan 文殊師利淨律經 1 juan: Dharmaraksa 文殊師利淨律經 1 juan (288). Hayashiya claims further that, judging from records of Nie Daozhen’s activities, it is not unreasonable to think that he translated even more scriptures. Although there were some amanuenses 筆受 who did not know Sanskrit very well, they appeared only in and after the time of Kumarajiva, and Nie Daozhen probably had a good knowledge of Sanskrit, as he worked with Dharmaraksa for a long time. Furthermore, Dharmaraksa engaged in translating for as long as 42 years, and must have left translations only partially finished, or had plans for more translations when he passed away (289). Hayashiya emphasizes that it is quite different to maintain that Nie Daozhen might have had his own translation works, and to accept the ascriptions to him in LDSBJ. In defending the possibility that Nie Daozhen did indeed produce translations, Hayashiya only means that the vehement denial by some modern scholars that Nie Daozhen translated any scriptures is not well-founded, and not that we have any way of determining that extant texts are in fact such translations (289-290). Hayashiya adds that even if translation works by Nie Daozhen did exist, that would also not necessarily mean, as DTNDL claims, that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was a catalogue listing his own works. Titles for which Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is cited in LDSBJ (listed 290-294) do not include any ascribed to Nie Daozhen himself. However, neither does this prove that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue did not include any titles ascribed to Nie Daozhen, as Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was missing by the time of LDSBJ, and Fei must have obtained information about it via some other source. Still, Hayashiya claims, it is highly likely that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was actually a catalogue of Dharmaraksa’s works compiled by Nie Daozhen (290-295). Hayashiya also points out that among the titles for which Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is cited in LDSBJ, three are not ascribed to Dharmaraksa: two are ascribed to Lokaksema, and one to Zhi Qian. Hayashiya maintains that those cases do not contradict his view that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is a catalogue of Dharmaraksa’s works, since a small number of such odd entries could have been made by the people who used the catalogue, rather than by Nie Daozhen himself (295). Content of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (296-302) Next, Hayashiya asks if Nie Daozhen’s catalogue had the content presented in LDSBJ (296). Among titles for which LDSBJ cites Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, 56 are ascribed to Dharmaraksa. 55 (excepting the 師子月佛本生經 T176) are already ascribed to Dharmaraksa in CSZJJ. Hayashiya discusses three issues that might affect the credibility of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue: 1. Why are the Achamo jing 阿差末經 and Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 (both referring to the Aksayamati-nirdesa) listed separately? Sengyou lists the Achamo jing 阿差末經 and the Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 as different texts, but as Zhisheng points out in KYL, this is an error, and the two titles refer to one and the same text. This error derives presumably from the fact that the Aksayamati-nirdesa 阿差末經 ascribed to Dharmaraksa says 晋言云無盡意. These two titles are also listed separately in LDSBJ, citing Nie Daozhen’s catalogue . Hayashiya admits that such an error could make us doubt whether Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was really compiled by Nie Daozhen, since it is highly unlikely that Dharmaraksa’s amanuensis would make such a mistake. However, Hayashiya argues that this error can be explained as follows: Since Nie Daozhen’s catalogue had gone missing by the time of Fei, he must have referred to different catalogues separately containing information from Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, one listing 阿差末經 and another listing 無盡意經 and not have known that there was only one text (297-298). 2. Why is Nie Daozhen’s catalogue cited for three scriptures not ascribed to Dharmaraksa? LDSBJ cites Nie Daozhen’s catalogue for three titles not ascribed to Dharmaraksa: the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukkhavasthitasamadhi 般舟三昧經 T418 and *Ratnakuta 寶積經 ascribed to Lokaksema, and the Suramgamasamadhi 首楞嚴經 ascribed to Zhi Qian. Hayashiya argues that the inclusion of these titles can be explained as follows: For the Suramgamasamadhi, Dharmaraksa translated the same material as well, and Nie Daozhen’s catalogue might therefore have mentioned Zhi Qian’s version in relation to Dharmaraksa’s. Regarding The Lokaksema translations are both listed in Dao’an, and it is therefore reasonable that the two titles were mentioned in Nie Daozhen’s catalogue for some reasons (299). 3. Why does LDSBJ ascribe T176 to Dharmaraksa, citing Nie Daozhen’s catalogue? Hayashiya claims that T176 is clearly not Dharmaraksa’s work (the ascription is rejected by Zhisheng), and that the inclusion of this ascription would cast doubt on the reliability of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (299). However, Hayashiya maintains that this information can be explained as follows: It is implausible that Fei fabricated the description of the Nie Daozhen catalogue, and citations from it, for just one text, namely T176, which is not an important scripture. It is more plausible that the incorrect ascription was added during in the transmission process: for example, somebody might have written the title 師子月佛本生經 down in the margin of a copy of Nie Daozhen’s catalogue ,and it was later mistaken as part of the catalogue itself; or Fei might have simply cited incorrectly. We can reasonably assume that the ascription of T176 to Dharmaraksa was not in Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (299-300). Hayashiya asserts that it is safe to say that the other 54 titles were indeed recorded in Nie Daozhen’s catalogue. Since records from Nie Daozhen’s catalogue in LDSBJ were merely collected by Fei from other catalogues available in his time, it is probable that another 100-odd scriptures were originally listed in Nie Daozhen’s catalogue (300). Hayashiya maintains that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue probably did not provide the dates of translation. LDSBJ often provides the translation date in the entries citing Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, which gives the impression that Nie Daozhen’s catalogue is the source of those dates, but Hayashiya claims this is wrong, referring to his own “Jiku Hogo yakukyo no kenkyu 竺法護譯經の研究”. Dao’an provides a date for only twenty scriptures ascribed to Dharmaraksa (nine of which are probably based on colophons). If the source of these dates was Nie Daozhen, there should have been more, because as amanuensis 筆受, Nie Daozhen would have recorded the translation date of most of the scriptures listed (300-301). Relation between Nie Daozhen’s catalogue and Dao’an’s catalogue (302-304) Hayashiya claims that Dao’an must have referred to Nie Daozhen’s catalogue or the Dharmaraksa catalogue, because his catalogue includes over 150 texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa (302-303). If Nie Daozhen’s catalogue and the Dharmaraksa catalogue were two different catalogues, Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was more likely to be the one referred to by Dao’an, for two reasons: 1. Nie Daozhen’s catalogue was probably cited frequently in catalogues prior to LDSBJ, as Fei cited it for as many as 59 titles, while the Dharmaraksa catalogue was probably not cited in any of those catalogues, since Fei does not mention it. 2. All 54 scriptures correctly ascribed to Dharmaraksa in LDSBJ, citing Nie Daozhen, are included in Dao’an. This is more than one third of the scriptures Dao’an ascribes to Dharmaraksa (303). However, it is more reasonable to regard Nie Daozhen’s catalogue and the Dharmaraksa catalogue as one and the same. It is too peculiar to suppose that there were two catalogues with the very similar contents (303-304). Dharmaraksa catalogue 竺法護錄 Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 | |
|
A Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows this text as identical with Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 since Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is an alternate translation of the Si zhou jing 四洲經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26.60 [A Taishō note equates this text to Divyāvadāna nos. 39, 40]. However, Sengyou 僧祐 listed the Dingsheng wang gushi jing separately in his catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, along with another text with a similar title, the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經. Both of these tests were extant in Sengyou’s time. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, these three texts are different from one another. In the Taishō, we have extant the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經T40 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39, which are alternate translations of the Sizhou jing 四洲經. The styles of both texts show clearly that they were produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya points out also that the word Dingsheng wang 頂生王is not used in the Wentuojie wang jing T40, and Wentuojie wang is not used in the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39. The Sanskrit word for Wentuojie wang 文陀竭王 must have been Māndhātṛ or Māndhātā, and the word for Dingsheng wang 頂生王 should have been Mūrdhagata or Mūrdata. Thus, it could not have been the case that the Wentuojie wang jing T40 was initially called Dingsheng wang gushi jing or Dingshengwang yinyuan jing, nor that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 was initially called the Wentuojie wang jing. Thus, it is safe to regard the Wentuojie wang jing T40 as identical with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 in Dao'an's list, and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 as corresponding either to the title Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 or Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as recorded in Sengyou's catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and some other catalogues that followed it, are therefore incorrect in classifying the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as the same text, while omitting the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 altogether. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記, and following it, KYL 開元錄, treated the three titles as different: but they give the Wangtuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 as translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖; the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as translated by Faju 法炬; and the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of these attributions are incorrect or groundless. [For his arguments about T39 and T40, see the separate entries on T39 and T40.] Hayashiya thus holds that he present Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 should be regarded as a separate, lost text, and its ascription should be regarded as undetermined, since there is no evidence that anybody after Sengyou ever saw the content of the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing given in his list. It was first alleged that the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 was produced in the Latter Han period in LDSBJ 三寶記, but without any reasonable support, so Hayashiya sets the possible production date of that text as sometime between the Latter Han 後漢 and Song-Qi 宋齊periods. |
768-775 |
A Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows this text as identical with Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 since Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is an alternate translation of the Si zhou jing 四洲經 in the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26.60 [A Taisho note equates this text to Divyavadana nos. 39, 40]. However, Sengyou 僧祐 listed the Dingsheng wang gushi jing separately in his catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, along with another text with a similar title, the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經. Both of these tests were extant in Sengyou’s time. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, these three texts are different from one another. In the Taisho, we have extant the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經T40 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39, which are alternate translations of the Sizhou jing 四洲經. The styles of both texts show clearly that they were produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya points out also that the word Dingsheng wang 頂生王is not used in the Wentuojie wang jing T40, and Wentuojie wang is not used in the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39. The Sanskrit word for Wentuojie wang 文陀竭王 must have been Mandhatr or Mandhata, and the word for Dingsheng wang 頂生王 should have been Murdhagata or Murdata. Thus, it could not have been the case that the Wentuojie wang jing T40 was initially called Dingsheng wang gushi jing or Dingshengwang yinyuan jing, nor that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 was initially called the Wentuojie wang jing. Thus, it is safe to regard the Wentuojie wang jing T40 as identical with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 in Dao'an's list, and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 as corresponding either to the title Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 or Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as recorded in Sengyou's catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and some other catalogues that followed it, are therefore incorrect in classifying the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as the same text, while omitting the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 altogether. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記, and following it, KYL 開元錄, treated the three titles as different: but they give the Wangtuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 as translated by *Dharmaksema 曇無讖; the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as translated by Faju 法炬; and the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of these attributions are incorrect or groundless. [For his arguments about T39 and T40, see the separate entries on T39 and T40.] Hayashiya thus holds that he present Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 should be regarded as a separate, lost text, and its ascription should be regarded as undetermined, since there is no evidence that anybody after Sengyou ever saw the content of the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing given in his list. It was first alleged that the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 was produced in the Latter Han period in LDSBJ 三寶記, but without any reasonable support, so Hayashiya sets the possible production date of that text as sometime between the Latter Han 後漢 and Song-Qi 宋齊periods. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 |
|
A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭; T2154 (LV) 649a9-15. This prompted Hayashiya to investigate other texts ascribed to Zhu Falan in LDSBJ. Hayashiya shows that the other four of these five texts, apparently unbeknownst to Fei Changfang, all appear in the GSZ biography of Tanwulan; 十地斷結佛本生法海藏佛本行四十二章等五部, T2059 (L) 323a12-14. This means that all four texts should also be instances of the same error (Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 = *Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna). |
261-262 |
A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭; T2154 (LV) 649a9-15. This prompted Hayashiya to investigate other texts ascribed to Zhu Falan in LDSBJ. Hayashiya shows that the other four of these five texts, apparently unbeknownst to Fei Changfang, all appear in the GSZ biography of Tanwulan; 十地斷結佛本生法海藏佛本行四十二章等五部, T2059 (L) 323a12-14. This means that all four texts should also be instances of the same error (Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 = *Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna). Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 (*Dharmaratna?) Erbailiushi jie heyi 二百六十戒合異 Fa hai zang [jing] 法海藏[經] Fo ben sheng [jing] 佛本生[經] Fo ben xing [jing] 佛本行[經] Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 |
|
Hayashiya maintains that although this title in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 may refer to the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經 T572, there is no firm evidence for that possibility. Thus, this title should be listed separately from the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經. Some of the details of Hayashiya’s argument are as follows: The Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經 is listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country and was extant at the time of Sengyou. There is also a Fazhi nü jing 法志女經 listed in this same catalogue, and Hayashiya thinks that there is a possibility that the two titles refer to the same text, but it is not possible to be certain. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu also listed the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing and the Fazhi nü jing separately. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu followed Fajing and classified the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing as an independent Mahāyāna text, and the Fazhi nü jing as a lost text. Hayashiya points out that the view of these two catalogues that the two titles are different texts are not reliable, because the Fazhi nü jing had been lost since the time of Sengyou and its content is not known. However, Hayashiya accepts that we should keep the two titles separate, since there is no evidence that they are the same text, either, and the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country listed them separately anyway. LDSBJ omitted both titles. This is clearly not justified. KYL listed them both titles again, regarding both as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period. |
1002-1003 |
Hayashiya maintains that although this title in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 may refer to the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經 T572, there is no firm evidence for that possibility. Thus, this title should be listed separately from the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經. Some of the details of Hayashiya’s argument are as follows: The Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經 is listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country and was extant at the time of Sengyou. There is also a Fazhi nu jing 法志女經 listed in this same catalogue, and Hayashiya thinks that there is a possibility that the two titles refer to the same text, but it is not possible to be certain. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu also listed the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing and the Fazhi nu jing separately. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu followed Fajing and classified the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing as an independent Mahayana text, and the Fazhi nu jing as a lost text. Hayashiya points out that the view of these two catalogues that the two titles are different texts are not reliable, because the Fazhi nu jing had been lost since the time of Sengyou and its content is not known. However, Hayashiya accepts that we should keep the two titles separate, since there is no evidence that they are the same text, either, and the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country listed them separately anyway. LDSBJ omitted both titles. This is clearly not justified. KYL listed them both titles again, regarding both as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Fazhi nu jing 法志女經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Taishō: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
907-910 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: CSZJJ records two more alternate translation of this text: a Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經, translated by Jiqu Jingsheng; and an anonymous Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. All three titles were extant at the time of Sengyou, and his claims that they were different are reliable. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed Juqu Jingsheng's version only, and regarded the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing for the record of the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. Jingtai records that the text was four sheets 紙 long. Taisho: The text recorded in Jingtai has been identified as the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145, which is listed in the Taisho as a translation by Huijian 慧簡 of the (Southern) Song 宋 period. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly much older than that of Juqu Jingsheng. Furthermore, there is a separate text entitled the Da'aidao bannihuan jing T144, which is listed as translated by Bo Fazu 白法祖. This is a different text from T145, and also is old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hence, Hayashiya argues, Fajing is wrong in regarding the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ followed CSZJJ, not Fajing, by listing the three titles separately: a Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經, and two Fo mu bannihuan jing. However, it assigned different translators to the three texts without any grounds. The listed names are Bo Fazu 白法祖, Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 and Huijian 慧簡. Neither of the surviving two texts in the Taisho mentioned above is a work of any of these three figures. Thus, Hayashiya rejects all of those attributions. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: DZKZM and KYL adopted LDSBJ’s descriptions and classified a text of four sheets in length – which had been called the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 – as Huijian’s translation, but also re-named it the Fomu bannihuan jing. Also, DZKZM and KYL listed a newly-found version that was seven sheets long as the Da'aidao bannihuan jing translated by Bo Fazu. Both attributions are incorrect. Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 |
|
The Gu jing lu 古經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Gu lu 古錄. According to Hayashiya, four catalogues, namely LDSBJ, the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄 T2157, state that this catalogue was brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and seventeen other scholars as part of their tribute to Emperor Qin Shihuang. However, Hayashiya points out that DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue just follow LDSBJ in reporting this tradition, and neither Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, nor Yuanzhao 圓照, nor any other scholars, based their information about this catalogue on any evidence found by their own research on older records. Thus, the existence or non-existence of the Gu lu must be judged entirely according to the reliability of LDSBJ’s report. However, Fei does not cite any sources in support of his description of the Gu lu, so that it is not possible even to evaluate his sources. Furthermore, although Fei reports elsewhere an anecdote about a supernatural incident that occurred when Shi Lifang 釋利防 and his seventeen companions visited Emperor Qin Shihuang, in that context, he does not mention at all the existence of a catalogue of scriptures. Hayashiya maintains that it is as though Fei did not regard the historical record of the Gu lu as important, even though he himself provided it. |
221-223 |
The Gu jing lu 古經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Gu lu 古錄. According to Hayashiya, four catalogues, namely LDSBJ, the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄 T2157, state that this catalogue was brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and seventeen other scholars as part of their tribute to Emperor Qin Shihuang. However, Hayashiya points out that DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue just follow LDSBJ in reporting this tradition, and neither Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, nor Yuanzhao 圓照, nor any other scholars, based their information about this catalogue on any evidence found by their own research on older records. Thus, the existence or non-existence of the Gu lu must be judged entirely according to the reliability of LDSBJ’s report. However, Fei does not cite any sources in support of his description of the Gu lu, so that it is not possible even to evaluate his sources. Furthermore, although Fei reports elsewhere an anecdote about a supernatural incident that occurred when Shi Lifang 釋利防 and his seventeen companions visited Emperor Qin Shihuang, in that context, he does not mention at all the existence of a catalogue of scriptures. Hayashiya maintains that it is as though Fei did not regard the historical record of the Gu lu as important, even though he himself provided it. Gu lu 古錄 |
|
Hayashiya separates two problems: 1) the supposed original Gu lu of Shi Lifang; 2) the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts. 1. Did the supposed Gu lu of Shi Lifang 釋利房, composed under the Qin 秦 dynasty, even exist, and if so, could it have been transmitted and exerted an influence on later catalogues? Hayashiya thinks that there is no way to absolutely rule out the possibility that this catalogue did once exist, but even so, we would have to ask what sort of catalogue it could have been, and how it could have been transmitted. Outside China, the Qin (221-206 BCE) was a period before the recording of Buddhist texts in writing, and the catalogue would therefore have been an oral text. Hayashiya speculates that perhaps it would have been in uddāna (summary verse) format. In China, this period is too early for paper, so if the text was transmitted in writing, it would have been in another medium. Further, this was also supposed to be a period prior to the translation of any texts into Chinese, so we might wonder whether the texts the catalogue listed would have been in other languages, and if so, how Chinese people would have transmitted the catalogue (whether orally, or in writing), and understood it (especially in later generations), if it was in an Indic language. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that whether or not such a catalogue ever existed, it is largely incoherent to suppose that it was transmitted to be used as late as Fei Changfang. Traditions about this original text should therefore be set aside in the consideration of the Gu lu cited by LDSBJ. 2. Hayashiya asks: By what route could Fei Changfang have known the content of this Gu lu, and what was the nature of the text he cites? CSZJJ also cites a Gu lu, but for three of the texts on which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu, CSZJJ does not. Thus, Fei could not have known of the Gu lu exclusively via CSZJJ. However, for four other texts, the Gu lu is cited by both LDSBJ and CSZJJ, which Hayashiya thinks shows that the Gu lu at issue is roughly the same text—which should therefore be a common independent source for both catalogues. Hayashiya lists and analyses the texts for which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu (225-226). These seven texts include texts much later than the Qin (or even Han), and even some texts whose titles include post-Kumārajīva terminology (Hayashiya does not specify which texts he means). The Gu lu therefore cannot be the same catalogue ascribed by legend to Shi Lifang, even if such a text did exist. This dovetails with Hayashiya’s earlier point that even if the Shi Lifang’s Gu lu existed, it could not have been transmitted and used by Fei. And yet, there are passages in which Fei speaks as if he is identifying the two. For example, he refers to the Gu lu as a source in a biographical notice about An Shigao. Here, the confusion is compounded further by the fact that the Gu lu is not cited for a single An Shigao text in the notes on individual texts (229-230). Hayashiya also discusses the nature of this Gu lu in tandem with the nature of the Jiu lu 舊錄 (226-227). According to Fei’s overview of Buddhist bibliographic history in LDSBJ juan 15, a work referred to by the title Jiu lu was supposedly compiled by Liu Xiang 劉向 under the Han. Yet, as with the Gu lu, the pattern of use made of this source in the notes to individual texts shows that the Jiu lu actually cited cannot be the Han text. This then means, however, that Fei does not discuss in his juan 15 survey of bibliographic history the Gu lu and Jiu lu that he actually cites for individual texts—rather, he only discusses under these titles the supposed Shi Lifang and Liu Xiang catalogues. It does not make sense for Fei to omit these important catalogues from his discussion, given the extensive use he makes of them. Thus, for both the Gu lu and the Jiu lu, Fei appears to identify the sources cited as authority for individual texts and ascriptions with very early legendary catalogues of the Qin and Han dynasties, and gives no information about any other texts by the same titles; and yet, it is incoherent to think that he could indeed have been using such sources, even if they existed, for the information he gives about actual texts. |
222-231 |
Hayashiya separates two problems: 1) the supposed original Gu lu of Shi Lifang; 2) the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts. 1. Did the supposed Gu lu of Shi Lifang 釋利房, composed under the Qin 秦 dynasty, even exist, and if so, could it have been transmitted and exerted an influence on later catalogues? Hayashiya thinks that there is no way to absolutely rule out the possibility that this catalogue did once exist, but even so, we would have to ask what sort of catalogue it could have been, and how it could have been transmitted. Outside China, the Qin (221-206 BCE) was a period before the recording of Buddhist texts in writing, and the catalogue would therefore have been an oral text. Hayashiya speculates that perhaps it would have been in uddana (summary verse) format. In China, this period is too early for paper, so if the text was transmitted in writing, it would have been in another medium. Further, this was also supposed to be a period prior to the translation of any texts into Chinese, so we might wonder whether the texts the catalogue listed would have been in other languages, and if so, how Chinese people would have transmitted the catalogue (whether orally, or in writing), and understood it (especially in later generations), if it was in an Indic language. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that whether or not such a catalogue ever existed, it is largely incoherent to suppose that it was transmitted to be used as late as Fei Changfang. Traditions about this original text should therefore be set aside in the consideration of the Gu lu cited by LDSBJ. 2. Hayashiya asks: By what route could Fei Changfang have known the content of this Gu lu, and what was the nature of the text he cites? CSZJJ also cites a Gu lu, but for three of the texts on which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu, CSZJJ does not. Thus, Fei could not have known of the Gu lu exclusively via CSZJJ. However, for four other texts, the Gu lu is cited by both LDSBJ and CSZJJ, which Hayashiya thinks shows that the Gu lu at issue is roughly the same text—which should therefore be a common independent source for both catalogues. Hayashiya lists and analyses the texts for which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu (225-226). These seven texts include texts much later than the Qin (or even Han), and even some texts whose titles include post-Kumarajiva terminology (Hayashiya does not specify which texts he means). The Gu lu therefore cannot be the same catalogue ascribed by legend to Shi Lifang, even if such a text did exist. This dovetails with Hayashiya’s earlier point that even if the Shi Lifang’s Gu lu existed, it could not have been transmitted and used by Fei. And yet, there are passages in which Fei speaks as if he is identifying the two. For example, he refers to the Gu lu as a source in a biographical notice about An Shigao. Here, the confusion is compounded further by the fact that the Gu lu is not cited for a single An Shigao text in the notes on individual texts (229-230). Hayashiya also discusses the nature of this Gu lu in tandem with the nature of the Jiu lu 舊錄 (226-227). According to Fei’s overview of Buddhist bibliographic history in LDSBJ juan 15, a work referred to by the title Jiu lu was supposedly compiled by Liu Xiang 劉向 under the Han. Yet, as with the Gu lu, the pattern of use made of this source in the notes to individual texts shows that the Jiu lu actually cited cannot be the Han text. This then means, however, that Fei does not discuss in his juan 15 survey of bibliographic history the Gu lu and Jiu lu that he actually cites for individual texts—rather, he only discusses under these titles the supposed Shi Lifang and Liu Xiang catalogues. It does not make sense for Fei to omit these important catalogues from his discussion, given the extensive use he makes of them. Thus, for both the Gu lu and the Jiu lu, Fei appears to identify the sources cited as authority for individual texts and ascriptions with very early legendary catalogues of the Qin and Han dynasties, and gives no information about any other texts by the same titles; and yet, it is incoherent to think that he could indeed have been using such sources, even if they existed, for the information he gives about actual texts. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Gu lu 古錄 |
Hayashiya studies the so-called Gu lu as it appears in LDSBJ. The Gu jing lu 古經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Gu lu 古錄. According to Hayashiya, four catalogues, namely LDSBJ, the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄, state that this catalogue was brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and seventeen other scholars as part of their tribute to Emperor Qin Shihuang. However, Hayashiya points out that DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue just follow LDSBJ in reporting this tradition, and neither Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, nor Yuanzhao 圓照, nor any other scholars, based their information about this catalogue on any evidence found by their own research on older records. Thus, the existence or non-existence of the Gu lu must be judged entirely according to the reliability of LDSBJ’s report. However, Fei does not cite any sources in support of his description of the Gu lu, so that it is not possible even to evaluate his sources. Furthermore, although Fei reports elsewhere an anecdote about a supernatural incident that occurred when Shi Lifang 釋利房 and his seventeen companions visited Emperor Qin Shihuang, in that context, he does not mention at all the existence of a catalogue of scriptures. Hayashiya maintains that it is as though Fei did not regard the historical record of the Gu lu as important, even though he himself provided it. Hayashiya’s view is that the Gu lu might have existed, but even if it did, its content would have been so peculiar that the catalogue could not have influenced the catalogues known today. Thus, he claims that the Gu lu can be regarded as one of “legendary” catalogues and can safely be ignored in the study of scriptures and catalogues. Hayashiya also argues that the Gu lu described by LDSBJ and other catalogues is not the same text as the text they actually cite under the same title, Gu lu (and likewise for the Jiu lu). Hayashiya’s argument can be summarized as follows: Hayashiya maintains that it remains indeterminate whether the story of introduction of Buddhism to China by Shi Lifang 釋利房 is true or not, as some support exists for each possibility, but we have no decisive evidence either way. Thus, Hayashiya disagrees with quite a few scholars who utterly rejects the introduction of Buddhism by Shi Lifang as a myth. Then Hayashiya goes on to hypothesize that a catalogue in a foreign language, rather than Chinese, might have been compiled if Shi Lifang brought scriptures to China. This catalogue should have been in some Indic language (the original language of the scriptures in question), because the scriptures themselves would not yet have been translated. Such a catalogue would be recorded orally or written on palm leaves 貝葉, as paper only started to be used in the Wei 魏 period. Hayashiya further suggests that the catalogue is more likely to have had an udāna 優陀那頌 for each title to make the content easier to remember or keep organized, as materials recorded in those forms often did. However, Hayashiya emphasizes that the existence of such a catalogue is just a speculative possibility, posited on the hypothesis that Buddhism was indeed introduced to China by Shi Lifang. Hayashiya also points out that, since this catalogue of scriptures brought by Shi Lifang must have listed untranslated scriptures in the original language, it would not have influenced later catalogues written in Chinese. Because we cannot be sure it even existed, Hayashiya claims that it is safe to treat the Gu lu as one of the “legendary” catalogues, and to ignore it (224-225). Hayashiya then argues that the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ is the same catalogue as the Gu lu cited in CSZJJ, since among the seven scriptures for which Fei cites the Gu lu, three are also listed in CSZJJ, citing the Gu lu. Likewise, Hayashiya claims that the Jiu lu cited in LDSBJ and the Jiu lu cited in CSZJJ are also the same, because almost all of more than 130 titles for which Fei cites the Jiu lu are in CSZJJ also citing the same name. (225-227) However, LDSBJ contains no separate record or description of the Gu lu nor the the Jiu lu as cited in the entries, not those “legendary” ones. Hayashiya claims that this is not because Fei regards these catalogues as insignificant, citing passages that indicate their importance for Fei, and pointing out the fact that Fei cites the Jiu lu more than 130 times. Hayashiya also maintains that it is not because Fei regards the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he cites as identical with the “legendary” catalogues, because they are too different to be conflated, and the titles for which the Gu lu or the Jiu lu are cited include relatively new translation works, some of which even have in their titles words used only after Kumārajīva (227-228). Hayashiya infers that the reason that Fei does not to give any independent description of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he actually cites is that he treats them as identical with the “legendary” catalogues, under the supposition that those legendary catalogues may be cited as a source for scriptures translated after them . Hayashiya cites Fei’s statement on An Shigao’s translation works as one indication that Fei made such supposition. Hayashiya claims that, on this basis of such an interpretation, the “legendary” Gu lu and Jiu lu can be cited as a source for any translation works produced after them. Thus, for Fei it is not necessary to provide the description of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he cites as sources separately from the “legendary” Gu lu and Jiu lu. Hayashiya states that it would require further research to determine why Fei took such a view. Nonethless, Hayashiya believes that Fei’s view is not worth taking seriously, and asserts that the identification of the legendary Gu lu and Jiu lu with the Gu lu and Jiu lu actually cited is clearly incorrect. (228-230) (As for the nature of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu actually cited, Hayashiya states that the Jiu lu cited in CSZJJ is the Zhu Daozu catalogue 竺道祖錄, 367. He mentions that he will discuss this identification in detail in Part 4 and 5 of Kyōroku kenkyū, but the book ends with Part 3. Likewise, Hayashiya states that he will examine the nature of the Gu lu actually cited in CSZJJ in the non-existent Part 5, 230.) |
221-231 |
Hayashiya studies the so-called Gu lu as it appears in LDSBJ. The Gu jing lu 古經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Gu lu 古錄. According to Hayashiya, four catalogues, namely LDSBJ, the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄, state that this catalogue was brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and seventeen other scholars as part of their tribute to Emperor Qin Shihuang. However, Hayashiya points out that DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue just follow LDSBJ in reporting this tradition, and neither Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, nor Yuanzhao 圓照, nor any other scholars, based their information about this catalogue on any evidence found by their own research on older records. Thus, the existence or non-existence of the Gu lu must be judged entirely according to the reliability of LDSBJ’s report. However, Fei does not cite any sources in support of his description of the Gu lu, so that it is not possible even to evaluate his sources. Furthermore, although Fei reports elsewhere an anecdote about a supernatural incident that occurred when Shi Lifang 釋利房 and his seventeen companions visited Emperor Qin Shihuang, in that context, he does not mention at all the existence of a catalogue of scriptures. Hayashiya maintains that it is as though Fei did not regard the historical record of the Gu lu as important, even though he himself provided it. Hayashiya’s view is that the Gu lu might have existed, but even if it did, its content would have been so peculiar that the catalogue could not have influenced the catalogues known today. Thus, he claims that the Gu lu can be regarded as one of “legendary” catalogues and can safely be ignored in the study of scriptures and catalogues. Hayashiya also argues that the Gu lu described by LDSBJ and other catalogues is not the same text as the text they actually cite under the same title, Gu lu (and likewise for the Jiu lu). Hayashiya’s argument can be summarized as follows: Hayashiya maintains that it remains indeterminate whether the story of introduction of Buddhism to China by Shi Lifang 釋利房 is true or not, as some support exists for each possibility, but we have no decisive evidence either way. Thus, Hayashiya disagrees with quite a few scholars who utterly rejects the introduction of Buddhism by Shi Lifang as a myth. Then Hayashiya goes on to hypothesize that a catalogue in a foreign language, rather than Chinese, might have been compiled if Shi Lifang brought scriptures to China. This catalogue should have been in some Indic language (the original language of the scriptures in question), because the scriptures themselves would not yet have been translated. Such a catalogue would be recorded orally or written on palm leaves 貝葉, as paper only started to be used in the Wei 魏 period. Hayashiya further suggests that the catalogue is more likely to have had an udana 優陀那頌 for each title to make the content easier to remember or keep organized, as materials recorded in those forms often did. However, Hayashiya emphasizes that the existence of such a catalogue is just a speculative possibility, posited on the hypothesis that Buddhism was indeed introduced to China by Shi Lifang. Hayashiya also points out that, since this catalogue of scriptures brought by Shi Lifang must have listed untranslated scriptures in the original language, it would not have influenced later catalogues written in Chinese. Because we cannot be sure it even existed, Hayashiya claims that it is safe to treat the Gu lu as one of the “legendary” catalogues, and to ignore it (224-225). Hayashiya then argues that the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ is the same catalogue as the Gu lu cited in CSZJJ, since among the seven scriptures for which Fei cites the Gu lu, three are also listed in CSZJJ, citing the Gu lu. Likewise, Hayashiya claims that the Jiu lu cited in LDSBJ and the Jiu lu cited in CSZJJ are also the same, because almost all of more than 130 titles for which Fei cites the Jiu lu are in CSZJJ also citing the same name. (225-227) However, LDSBJ contains no separate record or description of the Gu lu nor the the Jiu lu as cited in the entries, not those “legendary” ones. Hayashiya claims that this is not because Fei regards these catalogues as insignificant, citing passages that indicate their importance for Fei, and pointing out the fact that Fei cites the Jiu lu more than 130 times. Hayashiya also maintains that it is not because Fei regards the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he cites as identical with the “legendary” catalogues, because they are too different to be conflated, and the titles for which the Gu lu or the Jiu lu are cited include relatively new translation works, some of which even have in their titles words used only after Kumarajiva (227-228). Hayashiya infers that the reason that Fei does not to give any independent description of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he actually cites is that he treats them as identical with the “legendary” catalogues, under the supposition that those legendary catalogues may be cited as a source for scriptures translated after them . Hayashiya cites Fei’s statement on An Shigao’s translation works as one indication that Fei made such supposition. Hayashiya claims that, on this basis of such an interpretation, the “legendary” Gu lu and Jiu lu can be cited as a source for any translation works produced after them. Thus, for Fei it is not necessary to provide the description of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he cites as sources separately from the “legendary” Gu lu and Jiu lu. Hayashiya states that it would require further research to determine why Fei took such a view. Nonethless, Hayashiya believes that Fei’s view is not worth taking seriously, and asserts that the identification of the legendary Gu lu and Jiu lu with the Gu lu and Jiu lu actually cited is clearly incorrect. (228-230) (As for the nature of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu actually cited, Hayashiya states that the Jiu lu cited in CSZJJ is the Zhu Daozu catalogue 竺道祖錄, 367. He mentions that he will discuss this identification in detail in Part 4 and 5 of Kyoroku kenkyu, but the book ends with Part 3. Likewise, Hayashiya states that he will examine the nature of the Gu lu actually cited in CSZJJ in the non-existent Part 5, 230.) Gu lu 古錄 Jiu lu 舊錄 | |
|
This text, the Hai you ba shi jing 海有八事經 is identical with some other texts with different names. For example, Dao'an's anonymous catalogue 安公失譯經録 (or Fajing 法經録 and Yancong 仁壽録, Hayashiya’s sentence is ambiguous) says that Da hai you jian jing 大海有減經 and the Hai you ba shi jing 海有八事經 are the same. Hayashiya concludes that it is an anonymous scripture 失譯經 of the W. Jin 西晋 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 era. |
492-493 |
This text, the Hai you ba shi jing 海有八事經 is identical with some other texts with different names. For example, Dao'an's anonymous catalogue 安公失譯經録 (or Fajing 法經録 and Yancong 仁壽録, Hayashiya’s sentence is ambiguous) says that Da hai you jian jing 大海有減經 and the Hai you ba shi jing 海有八事經 are the same. Hayashiya concludes that it is an anonymous scripture 失譯經 of the W. Jin 西晋 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 era. Hai you ba shi jing, 海有八事經 |
|
233 |
Han catalogue of Buddhist scriptures 漢時佛經目錄 | |
According to Hayashiya, LDSBJ reports a “catalogue of Buddhist scriptures of the Han era” 漢時佛經目錄 in 1 juan (hereafter “Han catalogue”), stating that it lists the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 translated by *Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰: 漢時佛經目錄一卷(似是伽葉摩騰創譯四十二章經目即撰錄), T2034 (XLIX) 127b25. Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, and Yuanzhao 圓照 follow LDSBJ in reporting the existence of this catalogue. Hayashiya conjectures that the entry on the Han catalogue in LDSBJ came from the description of the Sishi’er zhang jing that it presents, which says that *Kāśyapa Mātaṅga “translated and issued this scripture at Baima si, [and?] edited it on the basis of the catalogue(s)(?) 於白馬寺翻出此經, 依錄而編, T2034 (XLIX) 49d15 [according to Hayashiya, this Han catalogue is to be distinguished from the supposed Zhu Shixing catalogue of Han scriptures 朱士行漢錄 —MR.] Nonetheless, Hayashiya maintains that the Han catalogue is one of the “legendary” catalogues, and never existed. His argument can be summarised as follows. Hayashiya points out that the existence of a Han catalogue is denied by many modern scholars, who do not believe that Buddhism was officially brought to China at the time of Emperor Ming 明帝of the latter Han period, as legend claims. The Han catalogue is supposed to be a catalogue of scriptures that arrived at that time. Hayashiya claims that he himself is not so dismissive about the existence of the catalogue, and maintains that it is plausible that Buddhism was introduced to China in the time of Emperor Ming. However, Hayashiya denies the possibility that the Sishi’er zhang jing was translated in or around that time (Hayashiya refers to his own Bukkyō no Shina tōzen nendai no kenkyū 佛教の支那東漸年代の研究 for details of his examination of the introduction of Buddhism to China). Hayashiya points out that the “record on the Sishi’er zhang jing” 四十二章經記, viz., the oldest material that gives information about the Sishi’er zhang jing, does not mention its translation at all, but states, rather, that the scripture was put in a sealed box immediately after its arrival in China. On this basis, Hayashiya maintains that there is no ground for believing that a translation of the Sishe’er zhang jing was made immediately when it was first brought to China (referring to his own “Matō, Hōran no yakukyō to iwaruru shokyō no kenkyū 摩騰・法蘭の譯經といはるる諸經の研究”). Even if a translation was made, he adds, it is highly unlikely that a catalogue was then compiled only to record one text. Hayashiya also considers the possibility that the Han catalogue recorded more scriptures, such as those ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 by LDSBJ and other catalogues following it (viz., the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十地斷結經 in 4 juan, the Fo benxing jing 佛本行經 in 5 juan, the Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經 in 3 juan, the Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經 in 2 juan, and the Erbailiushi jie he yi 二百六十戒合異 in 2 juan (KYL lists the last text as a selection 撰 by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭). It would be preferable if the Han catalogue had thus recorded multiple texts. However, Hayashiya claims that all of those ascriptions to Falan by LDSBJ are incorrect and must be rejected (referring again to his “Matō, Hōran...”). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no evidence that positively establishes the existence of the Han catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the Gu lu, the Jiu lu and the “Han catalogue”, and that these should therefore be regarded as “legendary” catalogues, although LDSBJ and catalogues following it presented them as if they existed. |
233-235 |
According to Hayashiya, LDSBJ reports a “catalogue of Buddhist scriptures of the Han era” 漢時佛經目錄 in 1 juan (hereafter “Han catalogue”), stating that it lists the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 translated by *Kasyapa Matanga 迦葉摩騰: 漢時佛經目錄一卷(似是伽葉摩騰創譯四十二章經目即撰錄), T2034 (XLIX) 127b25. Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, and Yuanzhao 圓照 follow LDSBJ in reporting the existence of this catalogue. Hayashiya conjectures that the entry on the Han catalogue in LDSBJ came from the description of the Sishi’er zhang jing that it presents, which says that *Kasyapa Matanga “translated and issued this scripture at Baima si, [and?] edited it on the basis of the catalogue(s)(?) 於白馬寺翻出此經, 依錄而編, T2034 (XLIX) 49d15 [according to Hayashiya, this Han catalogue is to be distinguished from the supposed Zhu Shixing catalogue of Han scriptures 朱士行漢錄 —MR.] Nonetheless, Hayashiya maintains that the Han catalogue is one of the “legendary” catalogues, and never existed. His argument can be summarised as follows. Hayashiya points out that the existence of a Han catalogue is denied by many modern scholars, who do not believe that Buddhism was officially brought to China at the time of Emperor Ming 明帝of the latter Han period, as legend claims. The Han catalogue is supposed to be a catalogue of scriptures that arrived at that time. Hayashiya claims that he himself is not so dismissive about the existence of the catalogue, and maintains that it is plausible that Buddhism was introduced to China in the time of Emperor Ming. However, Hayashiya denies the possibility that the Sishi’er zhang jing was translated in or around that time (Hayashiya refers to his own Bukkyo no Shina tozen nendai no kenkyu 佛教の支那東漸年代の研究 for details of his examination of the introduction of Buddhism to China). Hayashiya points out that the “record on the Sishi’er zhang jing” 四十二章經記, viz., the oldest material that gives information about the Sishi’er zhang jing, does not mention its translation at all, but states, rather, that the scripture was put in a sealed box immediately after its arrival in China. On this basis, Hayashiya maintains that there is no ground for believing that a translation of the Sishe’er zhang jing was made immediately when it was first brought to China (referring to his own “Mato, Horan no yakukyo to iwaruru shokyo no kenkyu 摩騰・法蘭の譯經といはるる諸經の研究”). Even if a translation was made, he adds, it is highly unlikely that a catalogue was then compiled only to record one text. Hayashiya also considers the possibility that the Han catalogue recorded more scriptures, such as those ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 by LDSBJ and other catalogues following it (viz., the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十地斷結經 in 4 juan, the Fo benxing jing 佛本行經 in 5 juan, the Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經 in 3 juan, the Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經 in 2 juan, and the Erbailiushi jie he yi 二百六十戒合異 in 2 juan (KYL lists the last text as a selection 撰 by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭). It would be preferable if the Han catalogue had thus recorded multiple texts. However, Hayashiya claims that all of those ascriptions to Falan by LDSBJ are incorrect and must be rejected (referring again to his “Mato, Horan...”). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no evidence that positively establishes the existence of the Han catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the Gu lu, the Jiu lu and the “Han catalogue”, and that these should therefore be regarded as “legendary” catalogues, although LDSBJ and catalogues following it presented them as if they existed. Han catalogue of Buddhist scriptures 漢時佛經目錄 T0784; 四十二章經 | |
|
An independent alternate translation 別品異譯 of 鞞婆陵耆經, MĀ T26.63. An entry of for this text is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 and Fajing 法經録. However, it was overlooked in the Renshou lu 仁壽録, and also in LDSBJ 三寶記 and the Datang neidian lu 内典録 because of the mistake in the Renshou lu 仁壽録. The style of this text is older than that of 鞞婆陵耆經 T26.63, obviously that of the W. Jin 西晋 era (or earlier). |
498-501 |
An independent alternate translation 別品異譯 of 鞞婆陵耆經, MA T26.63. An entry of for this text is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 and Fajing 法經録. However, it was overlooked in the Renshou lu 仁壽録, and also in LDSBJ 三寶記 and the Datang neidian lu 内典録 because of the mistake in the Renshou lu 仁壽録. The style of this text is older than that of 鞞婆陵耆經 T26.63, obviously that of the W. Jin 西晋 era (or earlier). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Huanyu jing, 歡豫經 |
|
The Jiu jing lu 舊經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Jiu lu 舊錄. According to Hayashiya, LDSBJ records that this appeared to be a catalogue of texts that Liu Xiang 劉向 of the former Han period had seen among [books] searched out from places of hiding(? see below) 似前漢劉向搜集藏書所見經録, T2034 (XLIX) 127c1. The Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 repeats this report, adding that the catalogue recorded the scriptures that had been found hidden inside the wall of the house of the Confucius clan, or hidden among the people, at the time of the book-burning in the Qin period 似是前漢劉向挍書天閣。往往多見佛經。斯即往古藏經録。謂孔壁所藏。或秦政焚書人中所藏者, T2149 (LV) 336b15. KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄 followed DTNDL. Thus, the Jiu lu was first reported by LDSBJ, followed by DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue. This is the same pattern seen for the Gu lu 古錄. Hayashiya maintains that this legend, that Liu Xiang found scriptures hidden inside the wall of the Confucius family home which had thereby survived Qin book burning, was already widely known in Sengyou’s time. As support for this view, Hayashiya quotes some lines from CSZJJ and the Ming fo lun 明佛論 by Zong Bing 宗炳 (included in the Hong ming ji 弘明集 compiled by Sengyou): CSZJJ: 竊尋兩漢之季世構亂離。西京蕩覆墳典皆散。東都播遷載籍多亡。子政所覩其文雖沒。而顯宗所寫厥篇猶存, T2145 (LV) 5b21-23. 明佛論: 東方朔對漢武劫燒之説劉向列仙叙七十四人在佛經 學者之管窺於斯又非漢明而始也, T2102 (LII) 12c8-10. Thus, Hayashiya infers that Fei’s report about the Jiu lu may well be based upon some materials mentioning such a legend. However, as the story of Liu Xiang’s retrieval of these lost scriptures is not mentioned at all in the Liu xiang ji 劉向集 of the Sui shu 隋書, Hayashiya claims that it is most likely to have been considered as a mythical story even early on, and hence the Jiu lu should also be considered a “legendary” catalogue. Hayashiya adds that the Jiu lu discussed here is completely different from the Jiu lu 舊錄 cited in the notes in catalogues such as CSZJJ and LDSBJ (the situations is the same regarding the 古錄 recorded as a catalogue and the 古録 in the notes in those catalogues). Hayashiya states that he analyses the characteristics of the Jiu lu 舊錄 that appears in the notes in Part 4 and 5 of the same work, Kyōrokukenkyū. |
231-233 |
The Jiu jing lu 舊經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Jiu lu 舊錄. According to Hayashiya, LDSBJ records that this appeared to be a catalogue of texts that Liu Xiang 劉向 of the former Han period had seen among [books] searched out from places of hiding(? see below) 似前漢劉向搜集藏書所見經録, T2034 (XLIX) 127c1. The Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 repeats this report, adding that the catalogue recorded the scriptures that had been found hidden inside the wall of the house of the Confucius clan, or hidden among the people, at the time of the book-burning in the Qin period 似是前漢劉向挍書天閣。往往多見佛經。斯即往古藏經録。謂孔壁所藏。或秦政焚書人中所藏者, T2149 (LV) 336b15. KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄 followed DTNDL. Thus, the Jiu lu was first reported by LDSBJ, followed by DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue. This is the same pattern seen for the Gu lu 古錄. Hayashiya maintains that this legend, that Liu Xiang found scriptures hidden inside the wall of the Confucius family home which had thereby survived Qin book burning, was already widely known in Sengyou’s time. As support for this view, Hayashiya quotes some lines from CSZJJ and the Ming fo lun 明佛論 by Zong Bing 宗炳 (included in the Hong ming ji 弘明集 compiled by Sengyou): CSZJJ: 竊尋兩漢之季世構亂離。西京蕩覆墳典皆散。東都播遷載籍多亡。子政所覩其文雖沒。而顯宗所寫厥篇猶存, T2145 (LV) 5b21-23. 明佛論: 東方朔對漢武劫燒之説劉向列仙叙七十四人在佛經 學者之管窺於斯又非漢明而始也, T2102 (LII) 12c8-10. Thus, Hayashiya infers that Fei’s report about the Jiu lu may well be based upon some materials mentioning such a legend. However, as the story of Liu Xiang’s retrieval of these lost scriptures is not mentioned at all in the Liu xiang ji 劉向集 of the Sui shu 隋書, Hayashiya claims that it is most likely to have been considered as a mythical story even early on, and hence the Jiu lu should also be considered a “legendary” catalogue. Hayashiya adds that the Jiu lu discussed here is completely different from the Jiu lu 舊錄 cited in the notes in catalogues such as CSZJJ and LDSBJ (the situations is the same regarding the 古錄 recorded as a catalogue and the 古録 in the notes in those catalogues). Hayashiya states that he analyses the characteristics of the Jiu lu 舊錄 that appears in the notes in Part 4 and 5 of the same work, Kyorokukenkyu. Jiu lu 舊錄 |
|
This text is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録, but most of the other catalogues do not include it, probably because the text was the same as 賴吒和羅經 (T68) translated by Zhi Qian 支謙. It is likely that Dao'an did not notice that it was done by Zhi Qian, and treated it as an anonymous scripture 失譯經. KYL 開元録 is wrong in including both 賴吒和羅經 and 頼吒諤羅經. |
496-498 |
This text is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録, but most of the other catalogues do not include it, probably because the text was the same as 賴吒和羅經 (T68) translated by Zhi Qian 支謙. It is likely that Dao'an did not notice that it was done by Zhi Qian, and treated it as an anonymous scripture 失譯經. KYL 開元録 is wrong in including both 賴吒和羅經 and 頼吒諤羅經. Zhi Qian 支謙 Laizha'eluo jing 賴吒諤羅經 |
|
236-240 |
Lokaksema catalogue 支讖錄 | |
Hayashiya states that the catalogues of translated scriptures 譯經目錄 of the works of *Lokakṣema支婁迦讖 and Zhi Qian 支謙 are two of the most important catalogues that existed prior to Dao’an. According to Hayashiya, it remains uncertain whether *Lokakṣema and Zhi Qian compiled those catalogues listing their works themselves, or it was done by someone else. Hayashiya claims that Dao’an must have referred to at least some of the catalogues extant in his time (although it is not known how many of them he actually saw), and that there must have been catalogues produced before Dao’an’s time other than those that Hayashiya discusses in Kyōroku kenkyū (although there is no way to know about such catalogues today, as they are lost without any record). Hayashiya asserts that these two catalogues existed on the basis of a certain section of the “Record of the Synoptic Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra” 合首楞嚴經記 by Zhi Mindu支慜/敏度. Hayashiya admits that it is not easy to understand precisely what this record says about the catalogues in question, because it is written in a terse style, and is mostly about the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra itself, only briefly mentioning records of this and other scriptures. However, Hayashiya maintains that part of the notice supports the existence of these two catalogues for the following reasons: the catalogue of Zhi Qian’s works must have existed, because Zhi Mindu states that “The scriptures translated by [Zhi Qian] between the Huangwu 黄武 era and the Jianguo 建興 era [came to] several dozen fascicles in total, there are separate transmission accounts, records and catalogues(?) [for them]” 從黄武至建興中。所出諸經凡數十卷。自有別傳記録. Hayashiya claims that the existence of the catalogue of *Lokakṣema’s works should also be accepted, although it is not explicitly stated by Zhi Mindu that there was such a catalogue, because the pertinent section of Zhi Mindu’s “record” mentions a number of scriptures translated by *Lokakṣema, including the Śūraṃgamasamādhi. However, Hayashiya does not think that a sentence at the end of the record reading “there is/are (a) catalogue(s) and/of records for each of these two ‘houses’ [translators, translation workshops]” 二家各有記録耳 unequivocally indicates the existence of the two catalogues, since in this context, the sentence could also mean that there are two separate records for the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra itself (the one ascribed to *Lokakṣema and the other ascribed to Zhi Qian), despite the fact that the two texts were supposedly similar, because Zhi Qian revised on the basis of *Lokakṣema. Hayashiya values highly the evidence in Zhi Mindu’s “record” for the catalogues of *Lokakṣema and Zhi Qian, because Hayashiya regards Zhi Mindu as just as reliable as Dao’an. Hayashiya thinks that Dao’an also probably actually saw these two catalogues, or at least saw some catalogue(s) that recorded their content, because Dao’an’s catalogue ascribes as many as twelve scriptures to *Lokakṣema, who was active more than two hundred years before Dao’an, and as many as thirty to Zhi Qian, who was active more than one hundred fifty years before Dao’an. He must have been helped by some catalogue(s) other than his own to have obtained this information. However, Hayashiya admits that it ultimately remains uncertain whether Dao’an saw these two catalogues, since Dao’an does not include the *Drumakinnararāja-sūtra 屯眞陀羅王經 or the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 in his catalogue. The former is one of the principal works of Lokakṣema mentioned by Zhi Mindu, while the latter is included in a “separately transmitted records [or ‘separate biographies, records...’? – MR] and catalogues of [the works of] Zhi Qian(??)” 支謙....別傳記錄. CSZJJ states of each of these two titles that “it is recorded in [these] other catalogues (bie lu 別録)” but not in Dao’an, and now the text is missing 別録所載安録無今闕.” This being the case, it seems as though Dao’an did not see the “other catalogues” or bie lu in question. However, Hayashiya emphasizes that one should also not conclude from the absence of these two titles in Dao’an’s catalogue that Dao’an definitely did not see this bie lu, because Dao’an included only the texts that he actually saw in his catalogue, and because, as Dao’an himself says, some parts of his catalogue went missing while he was moving from place to place to avoid wars. Thus, it ultimately remains uncertain if Dao’an directly saw the catalogues of Zhi Qian and *Lokakṣema’s works, too. |
236-240 |
Hayashiya states that the catalogues of translated scriptures 譯經目錄 of the works of *Lokaksema支婁迦讖 and Zhi Qian 支謙 are two of the most important catalogues that existed prior to Dao’an. According to Hayashiya, it remains uncertain whether *Lokaksema and Zhi Qian compiled those catalogues listing their works themselves, or it was done by someone else. Hayashiya claims that Dao’an must have referred to at least some of the catalogues extant in his time (although it is not known how many of them he actually saw), and that there must have been catalogues produced before Dao’an’s time other than those that Hayashiya discusses in Kyoroku kenkyu (although there is no way to know about such catalogues today, as they are lost without any record). Hayashiya asserts that these two catalogues existed on the basis of a certain section of the “Record of the Synoptic Suramgamasamadhi-sutra” 合首楞嚴經記 by Zhi Mindu支慜/敏度. Hayashiya admits that it is not easy to understand precisely what this record says about the catalogues in question, because it is written in a terse style, and is mostly about the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra itself, only briefly mentioning records of this and other scriptures. However, Hayashiya maintains that part of the notice supports the existence of these two catalogues for the following reasons: the catalogue of Zhi Qian’s works must have existed, because Zhi Mindu states that “The scriptures translated by [Zhi Qian] between the Huangwu 黄武 era and the Jianguo 建興 era [came to] several dozen fascicles in total, there are separate transmission accounts, records and catalogues(?) [for them]” 從黄武至建興中。所出諸經凡數十卷。自有別傳記録. Hayashiya claims that the existence of the catalogue of *Lokaksema’s works should also be accepted, although it is not explicitly stated by Zhi Mindu that there was such a catalogue, because the pertinent section of Zhi Mindu’s “record” mentions a number of scriptures translated by *Lokaksema, including the Suramgamasamadhi. However, Hayashiya does not think that a sentence at the end of the record reading “there is/are (a) catalogue(s) and/of records for each of these two ‘houses’ [translators, translation workshops]” 二家各有記録耳 unequivocally indicates the existence of the two catalogues, since in this context, the sentence could also mean that there are two separate records for the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra itself (the one ascribed to *Lokaksema and the other ascribed to Zhi Qian), despite the fact that the two texts were supposedly similar, because Zhi Qian revised on the basis of *Lokaksema. Hayashiya values highly the evidence in Zhi Mindu’s “record” for the catalogues of *Lokaksema and Zhi Qian, because Hayashiya regards Zhi Mindu as just as reliable as Dao’an. Hayashiya thinks that Dao’an also probably actually saw these two catalogues, or at least saw some catalogue(s) that recorded their content, because Dao’an’s catalogue ascribes as many as twelve scriptures to *Lokaksema, who was active more than two hundred years before Dao’an, and as many as thirty to Zhi Qian, who was active more than one hundred fifty years before Dao’an. He must have been helped by some catalogue(s) other than his own to have obtained this information. However, Hayashiya admits that it ultimately remains uncertain whether Dao’an saw these two catalogues, since Dao’an does not include the *Drumakinnararaja-sutra 屯眞陀羅王經 or the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 首楞嚴經 in his catalogue. The former is one of the principal works of Lokaksema mentioned by Zhi Mindu, while the latter is included in a “separately transmitted records [or ‘separate biographies, records...’? – MR] and catalogues of [the works of] Zhi Qian(??)” 支謙....別傳記錄. CSZJJ states of each of these two titles that “it is recorded in [these] other catalogues (bie lu 別録)” but not in Dao’an, and now the text is missing 別録所載安録無今闕.” This being the case, it seems as though Dao’an did not see the “other catalogues” or bie lu in question. However, Hayashiya emphasizes that one should also not conclude from the absence of these two titles in Dao’an’s catalogue that Dao’an definitely did not see this bie lu, because Dao’an included only the texts that he actually saw in his catalogue, and because, as Dao’an himself says, some parts of his catalogue went missing while he was moving from place to place to avoid wars. Thus, it ultimately remains uncertain if Dao’an directly saw the catalogues of Zhi Qian and *Lokaksema’s works, too. Lokaksema catalogue 支讖錄 Zhi Qian catalogue 支謙錄 | |
|
The Mile danglai sheng jing 彌勒當來生經 is listed as an unseen text in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, and hence already at the time of Sengyou, it should no longer have been extant. However, this text is in fact extant, since it should be considered as the same as the Mile lai shi jing 彌勒來時經 T457, listed in KYL 開元錄 as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period. This being the case, either the title Mile danglai sheng jing or Mile laishi jing should suffice. However, LDSBJ and the Neilu 内錄 of DTNDL do not include either, while KYL includes both. Thus, those catalogues are mistaken in this regard. Also, since it has been found that the extant Mile lai shi jing T457 is the same as the Mile danglai sheng jing, it is incorrect to describe the latter as being lost. Moreover, given that the Mile lai shi jing T457 is the same as the Mile danglai sheng jing, it should have been produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period, not the E. Jin 東晋 period as KYL says, because the Mile danglai sheng jing was already on Dao'an's list. (For detailed support for his arguments, Hayashiya refers to his own Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 5.) |
532-533 |
The Mile danglai sheng jing 彌勒當來生經 is listed as an unseen text in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, and hence already at the time of Sengyou, it should no longer have been extant. However, this text is in fact extant, since it should be considered as the same as the Mile lai shi jing 彌勒來時經 T457, listed in KYL 開元錄 as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period. This being the case, either the title Mile danglai sheng jing or Mile laishi jing should suffice. However, LDSBJ and the Neilu 内錄 of DTNDL do not include either, while KYL includes both. Thus, those catalogues are mistaken in this regard. Also, since it has been found that the extant Mile lai shi jing T457 is the same as the Mile danglai sheng jing, it is incorrect to describe the latter as being lost. Moreover, given that the Mile lai shi jing T457 is the same as the Mile danglai sheng jing, it should have been produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period, not the E. Jin 東晋 period as KYL says, because the Mile danglai sheng jing was already on Dao'an's list. (For detailed support for his arguments, Hayashiya refers to his own Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 5.) Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Mile danglai sheng jing 彌勒當來生經 T0457; 佛說彌勒來時經; Mile danglai sheng jing 彌勒當來生經 |
|
The title Muqu jing 目佉經 (*Mukha-sūtra) is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya maintains that the reason that LDSBJ omits this title is that LDSBJ used a different title, Anan muqu jing 阿難目佉經 for the same text, following the catalogue of Zhu Daozu 竺道祖錄. The ascription to An Faqin 安法欽 in LDSBJ is false. Hayashiya also argues that this Muqu jing 目佉經 is the same text as the Anantuo muqu nihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼訶離陀經 (Anantamukha[sādhaka]dhāraṇī) T1013 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 as the translator and the Anantuo muqu niheli tuolinni jing (Anantamukha[sādhaka]dhāraṇī) 阿難陀目佉尼訶離陀隣尼經 T1015 ascribed to Buddhaśānta 佛馱扇多as the translator. The Anantuo muqu ni'alituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 in CSZJJ should also be the same text as this Muqu jing 目佉經. (For detailed support for his arguments and further discussions, Hayashiya refers to his own work, Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 4, 124. There, he argues that the style of language in both T1013 and T1015 is clearly that of the 西晋 period or earlier, so the two cannot be translations by Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 or Buddhaśānta.) Thus, this Muqu jing 目佉經 should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and the Anantuo muqu ni'alituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 should be omitted. |
530-532 |
The title Muqu jing 目佉經 (*Mukha-sutra) is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya maintains that the reason that LDSBJ omits this title is that LDSBJ used a different title, Anan muqu jing 阿難目佉經 for the same text, following the catalogue of Zhu Daozu 竺道祖錄. The ascription to An Faqin 安法欽 in LDSBJ is false. Hayashiya also argues that this Muqu jing 目佉經 is the same text as the Anantuo muqu nihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼訶離陀經 (Anantamukha[sadhaka]dharani) T1013 ascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 as the translator and the Anantuo muqu niheli tuolinni jing (Anantamukha[sadhaka]dharani) 阿難陀目佉尼訶離陀隣尼經 T1015 ascribed to Buddhasanta 佛馱扇多as the translator. The Anantuo muqu ni'alituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 in CSZJJ should also be the same text as this Muqu jing 目佉經. (For detailed support for his arguments and further discussions, Hayashiya refers to his own work, Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 4, 124. There, he argues that the style of language in both T1013 and T1015 is clearly that of the 西晋 period or earlier, so the two cannot be translations by Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 or Buddhasanta.) Thus, this Muqu jing 目佉經 should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and the Anantuo muqu ni'alituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 should be omitted. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Muqu jing 目佉經 T1013; Anantamukhanirhara-dharani; 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經; Muqu jing 目佉經 T1015; 佛說阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經; Muqu jing 目佉經; Anantamukhanirhara-dharani |
|
According to Hayashiya, the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was also extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes this text in a group of unseen texts, so it was lost by the time of Fajing. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄 also listed this text with the title only, as a 別生經. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記 classifies the Nei li boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, a title which clearly refers to the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經, as a translation by Yan Fotiao 巖佛調, without giving any reasons. No previous catalogues had made such a claim. Further, Hayashiya points out that all texts that Fei Changfang 費長房 attributed to Yan Fotiao were in fact not by Yan Fotiao, with the sole exception of the Shi hui jing 十慧經 (Hayashiya refers to his own work, 巖佛調譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明], for further explanations). Thus, Fei Changfang's claim that the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 was translated by Yan Fotiao is baseless. By the time of KYL 開元錄, a text entitled Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 is noted, and was listed as Yan Fotiao's translation in the KYL. This text is extant today, as the Pusa nei xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 T778. Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary and tone of this text shows clearly that it was composed in or around the W. Jin 西晋 period, and cannot have been a translation by Yan Fotiao, who was active in the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that KYL classified this Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing as translated by Yan Fotiao on the simple assumption that it was the same text referred to with by the title Nei liu boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, and then following LDSBJ’s ascription. It remains undetermined whether T778, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period, is the same text as the Nei liu boluomi jing. Nonetheless, since the Nei liu boluomi jing is listed in Dao’an’s list, it must be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
813-815 |
According to Hayashiya, the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was also extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes this text in a group of unseen texts, so it was lost by the time of Fajing. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄 also listed this text with the title only, as a 別生經. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記 classifies the Nei li boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, a title which clearly refers to the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經, as a translation by Yan Fotiao 巖佛調, without giving any reasons. No previous catalogues had made such a claim. Further, Hayashiya points out that all texts that Fei Changfang 費長房 attributed to Yan Fotiao were in fact not by Yan Fotiao, with the sole exception of the Shi hui jing 十慧經 (Hayashiya refers to his own work, 巖佛調譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明], for further explanations). Thus, Fei Changfang's claim that the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 was translated by Yan Fotiao is baseless. By the time of KYL 開元錄, a text entitled Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 is noted, and was listed as Yan Fotiao's translation in the KYL. This text is extant today, as the Pusa nei xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 T778. Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary and tone of this text shows clearly that it was composed in or around the W. Jin 西晋 period, and cannot have been a translation by Yan Fotiao, who was active in the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that KYL classified this Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing as translated by Yan Fotiao on the simple assumption that it was the same text referred to with by the title Nei liu boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, and then following LDSBJ’s ascription. It remains undetermined whether T778, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period, is the same text as the Nei liu boluomi jing. Nonetheless, since the Nei liu boluomi jing is listed in Dao’an’s list, it must be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 |
|
The Neizang dafangdeng jing 内藏大方等經 was included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya discusses two possible reasons why it was omitted in LDSBJ, and argues that neither of them is good enough to justify the omission. (1) The first possible reason is that the Neizang dafangdeng jing might be the same text as the Fozang dafangdeng jing 佛藏大方等經, as Zhisheng suspected in the KYL, because the Fozang dafangdeng jing does appear in LDSBJ while the Neizang dafangdeng jing is omitted; but conversely, the Fozang... does not appear anywhere in CSZJJ, but it does include Neizang... (as part of Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures). However, Fajing and Yancong record both titles, recording Fozang... as a free-standing translation of an individual chapter 別品殊譯 of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華厳經. Moreover, KYL itself shows Fozang... as translated by Daoyan 道巖 in the Song 宋 period, following LDSBJ. This cannot be the case if Fozang... was the same as Neizang..., since the latter is included in Dao'an's list. Thus, Neizang... should be shown separately from Fozang..., because the current evidence for their suspected identity is rather weak. (2) The second possible reason is offered by Tokiwa, which is that Neizang... might be the same text as the Neizang jing 内藏經listed in LDSBJ as translated by An Shigao 安世高. However, Hayashiya points out that LDSBJ is highly unreliable, and even if this entry on the Neizang jing does indeed refer to the present Neizang dafangdeng jing, then we should excise the Neizang jing, not the Neizang dafangdeng jing. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that Tokiwa's reasons for suspecting that the present Neizang dafangdeng jing is the same text as LDSBJ's Neizang jing are not sufficient. On this basis, Hayashiya concludes that the present Neizang dafangdeng jing 内藏大方等經 should be retained, and regarded as an anonymous scripture of the 西晋 period or earlier. |
520-523 |
The Neizang dafangdeng jing 内藏大方等經 was included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya discusses two possible reasons why it was omitted in LDSBJ, and argues that neither of them is good enough to justify the omission. (1) The first possible reason is that the Neizang dafangdeng jing might be the same text as the Fozang dafangdeng jing 佛藏大方等經, as Zhisheng suspected in the KYL, because the Fozang dafangdeng jing does appear in LDSBJ while the Neizang dafangdeng jing is omitted; but conversely, the Fozang... does not appear anywhere in CSZJJ, but it does include Neizang... (as part of Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures). However, Fajing and Yancong record both titles, recording Fozang... as a free-standing translation of an individual chapter 別品殊譯 of the *Buddhavatamsaka 華厳經. Moreover, KYL itself shows Fozang... as translated by Daoyan 道巖 in the Song 宋 period, following LDSBJ. This cannot be the case if Fozang... was the same as Neizang..., since the latter is included in Dao'an's list. Thus, Neizang... should be shown separately from Fozang..., because the current evidence for their suspected identity is rather weak. (2) The second possible reason is offered by Tokiwa, which is that Neizang... might be the same text as the Neizang jing 内藏經listed in LDSBJ as translated by An Shigao 安世高. However, Hayashiya points out that LDSBJ is highly unreliable, and even if this entry on the Neizang jing does indeed refer to the present Neizang dafangdeng jing, then we should excise the Neizang jing, not the Neizang dafangdeng jing. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that Tokiwa's reasons for suspecting that the present Neizang dafangdeng jing is the same text as LDSBJ's Neizang jing are not sufficient. On this basis, Hayashiya concludes that the present Neizang dafangdeng jing 内藏大方等經 should be retained, and regarded as an anonymous scripture of the 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Neizang dafangdeng jing 内藏大方等經 |
|
282-304 |
Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 | |
|
LDSBJ (Fei Changfang) says that the Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 was translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無識, but Hayashiya points out that Dao'an already classified a Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 as a dubious scripture 疑經, and KYL 開元録 also included it in the same category. [MR: Note that the mention by Dao'an would make it a chronological impossibility that the text was translated by *Dharmakṣema. This text is known in the Nanatsudera manuscript, and was published in Chūgoku senjutsu kyōten(sono 1), edited by Makita Tairyō [Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha, 1994], pp. 6–67."] |
422-423 |
LDSBJ (Fei Changfang) says that the Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 was translated by *Dharmaksema 曇無識, but Hayashiya points out that Dao'an already classified a Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 as a dubious scripture 疑經, and KYL 開元録 also included it in the same category. [MR: Note that the mention by Dao'an would make it a chronological impossibility that the text was translated by *Dharmaksema. This text is known in the Nanatsudera manuscript, and was published in Chugoku senjutsu kyoten(sono 1), edited by Makita Tairyo [Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha, 1994], pp. 6–67."] Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 |
|
Hayashiya concludes that it is best to classify this text as an anonymous translation 失訳経 of the W. Jin 西晋 era or earlier, although there is a possibility that it is identical with the 私阿末經 [= 私呵昧經 T532] translated by Zhi Qian 支謙. Dao'an 道安 lists these two titles separately, and ascribes the 私阿末經 to Zhi Qian. This should give us pause in identifying the two with one another--if they were the same, why would Dao'an have separated them?--though it is also possible that Dao'an 道安 made a mistake. The two were first identified, and regarded as by Zhi Qian, with Fajing. Subsequent bibliographers accepted this identification and did not record the two texts separately, until Zhisheng's again separted them in his KYL. However, Zhisheng ascribed the text to the E. Jin; Hayashiya thinks this is incorrect. Hayashiya concludes that these two titles may have referred to alternate translations of the same original text by different translators, and suggests that it dates to the W. Jin 西晋 era (or earlier). |
481-484 |
Hayashiya concludes that it is best to classify this text as an anonymous translation 失訳経 of the W. Jin 西晋 era or earlier, although there is a possibility that it is identical with the 私阿末經 [= 私呵昧經 T532] translated by Zhi Qian 支謙. Dao'an 道安 lists these two titles separately, and ascribes the 私阿末經 to Zhi Qian. This should give us pause in identifying the two with one another--if they were the same, why would Dao'an have separated them?--though it is also possible that Dao'an 道安 made a mistake. The two were first identified, and regarded as by Zhi Qian, with Fajing. Subsequent bibliographers accepted this identification and did not record the two texts separately, until Zhisheng's again separted them in his KYL. However, Zhisheng ascribed the text to the E. Jin; Hayashiya thinks this is incorrect. Hayashiya concludes that these two titles may have referred to alternate translations of the same original text by different translators, and suggests that it dates to the W. Jin 西晋 era (or earlier). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Pusa daoshu jing, 菩薩道樹經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 lists a Sanshi’er xiang jing 三十二相經, with the alternate title Pusa sanshi’er xiang jing 菩薩三十二相經. Sengyou also lists a Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing 三十二相因縁經in the category of extant texts in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, with a comment that there are no substantial differences 大同小異 between the titles and the Sanshi’er xiang jing 三十二相經. Hayashiya points out that, generally, when Sengyou states that two texts are largely the same 大同小異, the differences between the texts are due merely to transmission errors, so that the differences between the Sanshi’er xiang jing and the the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing were probably insignificant. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu usually regards titles other than the main title as mere alternate titles when Sengyou says that texts are 大同小異. However, in this case, Fajing lists both the the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing and the Pusa sanshi’er xiang jing in its "Mahāyāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue" 大乗修多羅藏錄. Hayashiya points out that the Pusa... is clearly the Sanshi’er xiang jing of Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, and that Fajing listed the two titles separately just in order to avoid making a mistake, since in Fajing’s time, both of the texts were lost and the original body of the text 大經 was not identified. Yancong (仁壽録) and Jingtai listed the two titles in the group of Mahāyāna offshoot excerpt scriptures 大乗別生抄經, and the Datang neidian lu 内典録 did not even list the titles in its catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄. Hayashiya maintains that these facts also reflect that the scriptures were not available in their times. This is because, according to Hayashiya, as far as Yancong, Jingtai and the Datang neidian lu are concerned, when an offshoot text is extant while the original main text 大經 is not listed in the extant canon, usually the offshoot text is not listed as an offshoot excerpt but as a single text (so that the Sanshi’er xiang jing should be regarded as lost, since it is not listed as a single text). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the scripture was extant at the time of Sengyou, but lost in the Sui period and thereafter. No catalogue managed to give any ascription of the text. However, LDSBJ lists two Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing, one as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and the other (with the alternate title Pusa sanshi’er xiang jing 菩薩三十二相經) as the work of Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. Fei Changfang 費長房 states that the former title is the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing of the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures, and the latter is the Sanshi’er xiang jing of Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Nonetheless, he does not show any grounds for ascribing the two titles to the Latter Han 後漢 period and Dharmarakṣa respectively. KYL includes the title Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing in a group of sixty-six texts that are categorized as anonymous scriptures of the Latter Han 後漢 period by Fei (125 titles in total), but should be excised. The catalogue states that the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing is the work of Dharmarakṣa, referring to Dao’an’s catalogue and LDSBJ. It also lists the title with the same ascription in the group of single lost translations of Mahāyāna scriptures 有譯無本大乗經單譯闕本 of 別分乗藏錄. Thus, KYL regarded the two entries in LDSBJ as referring to the same text, and excised the one classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya points that KYL is right in thinking that there are not two different Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing, but it is incorrect in keeping the ascription to Dharmarakṣa, since its source is the unreliable description in LDSBJ. Hayashiya asserts that LDSBJ is incorrect in regarding the Sanshi’er xiang jing in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures as different texts, and that both of the ascriptions that LDSBJ gives to the posited two entries are also incorrect. Thus, he concludes that the text should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier, based on the fact that it is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, rejecting the ascription to Dharmarakṣa. |
901-904 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 lists a Sanshi’er xiang jing 三十二相經, with the alternate title Pusa sanshi’er xiang jing 菩薩三十二相經. Sengyou also lists a Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing 三十二相因縁經in the category of extant texts in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, with a comment that there are no substantial differences 大同小異 between the titles and the Sanshi’er xiang jing 三十二相經. Hayashiya points out that, generally, when Sengyou states that two texts are largely the same 大同小異, the differences between the texts are due merely to transmission errors, so that the differences between the Sanshi’er xiang jing and the the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing were probably insignificant. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu usually regards titles other than the main title as mere alternate titles when Sengyou says that texts are 大同小異. However, in this case, Fajing lists both the the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing and the Pusa sanshi’er xiang jing in its "Mahayana sutrapitaka catalogue" 大乗修多羅藏錄. Hayashiya points out that the Pusa... is clearly the Sanshi’er xiang jing of Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, and that Fajing listed the two titles separately just in order to avoid making a mistake, since in Fajing’s time, both of the texts were lost and the original body of the text 大經 was not identified. Yancong (仁壽録) and Jingtai listed the two titles in the group of Mahayana offshoot excerpt scriptures 大乗別生抄經, and the Datang neidian lu 内典録 did not even list the titles in its catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄. Hayashiya maintains that these facts also reflect that the scriptures were not available in their times. This is because, according to Hayashiya, as far as Yancong, Jingtai and the Datang neidian lu are concerned, when an offshoot text is extant while the original main text 大經 is not listed in the extant canon, usually the offshoot text is not listed as an offshoot excerpt but as a single text (so that the Sanshi’er xiang jing should be regarded as lost, since it is not listed as a single text). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the scripture was extant at the time of Sengyou, but lost in the Sui period and thereafter. No catalogue managed to give any ascription of the text. However, LDSBJ lists two Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing, one as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and the other (with the alternate title Pusa sanshi’er xiang jing 菩薩三十二相經) as the work of Dharmaraksa 竺法護. Fei Changfang 費長房 states that the former title is the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing of the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures, and the latter is the Sanshi’er xiang jing of Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Nonetheless, he does not show any grounds for ascribing the two titles to the Latter Han 後漢 period and Dharmaraksa respectively. KYL includes the title Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing in a group of sixty-six texts that are categorized as anonymous scriptures of the Latter Han 後漢 period by Fei (125 titles in total), but should be excised. The catalogue states that the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing is the work of Dharmaraksa, referring to Dao’an’s catalogue and LDSBJ. It also lists the title with the same ascription in the group of single lost translations of Mahayana scriptures 有譯無本大乗經單譯闕本 of 別分乗藏錄. Thus, KYL regarded the two entries in LDSBJ as referring to the same text, and excised the one classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya points that KYL is right in thinking that there are not two different Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing, but it is incorrect in keeping the ascription to Dharmaraksa, since its source is the unreliable description in LDSBJ. Hayashiya asserts that LDSBJ is incorrect in regarding the Sanshi’er xiang jing in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and the Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures as different texts, and that both of the ascriptions that LDSBJ gives to the posited two entries are also incorrect. Thus, he concludes that the text should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier, based on the fact that it is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, rejecting the ascription to Dharmaraksa. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Sanshi’er xiang jing 三十二相經, Pusa sanshi’er xiang jing 菩薩三十二相經. Sanshi’er xiang yinyuan jing 三十二相因縁經 |
|
LDSBJ (Fei Changfang) says that Xinshan jing 信善經, i.e. the Shanxin nü jing 善信女經, was translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無識, but Hayashiya points out that Dao'an already classified the Shanxing nü jing 善信女經 as a dubious scripture 疑經, and KYL 開元録 also included it in the category of dubious scriptures 疑經. [MR: note that the mention by Dao'an would make it chronologically impossible that this text was a *Dharmakṣema translation.] |
422-423 |
LDSBJ (Fei Changfang) says that Xinshan jing 信善經, i.e. the Shanxin nu jing 善信女經, was translated by *Dharmaksema 曇無識, but Hayashiya points out that Dao'an already classified the Shanxing nu jing 善信女經 as a dubious scripture 疑經, and KYL 開元録 also included it in the category of dubious scriptures 疑經. [MR: note that the mention by Dao'an would make it chronologically impossible that this text was a *Dharmaksema translation.] Shanxing nu jing 善信女經; Xinshan jing 信善經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and related titles is as follows: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Taishō: Hayashiya concludes that all attributions of translators to the different versions of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 should be omitted, because the source of those attributions, viz., LDSBJ, gives no ground the attributions it provides. Accordingly, probably the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 listed in CSZJJ was an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed on Dao’an’s list. The Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 is probably of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the W. Jin 西晋 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone. The title Yichu shi shan shi e jing may well just have been an alternate title of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, but since there is no decisive evidence either way, Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 should be retained as an independent title. (And if, as LDSBJ states, this title really was included in Zhu Daozu's Wu catalogue 竺道祖呉錄, it would be classified as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period or earlier.) |
930-938 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also lists an Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 in the category of unseen texts. Although he did not see it, it is titled yichu 異出 in the source catalogue he used, and therefore, the text is highly likely to be different from the Shi shan shi e jing. Also, there is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Thus, Sengyou lists three alternate translations of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經. There is a possibility that the unseen Yichu shi shan shi e jing was the same text as one of the others, but it is difficult to determine the relation between that unseen text and the other two. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as the same text, and did not list the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經. However, both the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing were extant at the time of Sengyou, and listed separately, so Sengyou and Fajing appear to disagree about the relation between the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. This issue is difficult to adjudicate, since both CSZJJ and Fajing contain mistakes. Hayashiya cannot find a reasonable explanation for the absence of the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in Fajing. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and made only a single entry for the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經. Yancong included the text in the group of Hinayana "offshoot texts" 別生抄, since the text available at the time of Yancong did not have the format usual for independent texts. Because of this, Jingtai did not show the length of the text. In any case, down to Jingtai, all the catalogues show the texts as anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ lists all of the three titles shown by Sengyou: a Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度, another Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 (referring to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 of CSZJJ) as translated by Tanwulan 曇無蘭, and a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects all of these attributions as groundless. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: DZKZM shows four entries for the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and related titles: adding to the titles in LDSBJ another Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度. DZKZM states that the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is shown in LDSBJ, but LDSBJ shows the Shi shan shi e jing as his, but not a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, so Hayashiya concludes that this new entry on a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is redundant with the Shi shan shi e jing by Zhi Fadu. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists the three titles shown in LDSBJ, while ignoring DZKZM’s redundant fourth entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. However, In the Korean edition of the Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄, Zhisheng 智昇 lists two Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, the one extant, and the other lost. Thus, there are four entries related to the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 in the Korean edition. Hayashiya explains this oddity as a simple mistake that Zhisheng 智昇 made when he found the text of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, which was once thought lost: Probably Zhisheng forgot to delete the entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing as a lost text when he made another entry showing it as extant. Taisho: There is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 extant in the Taisho. Its vocabulary and tone are clearly of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period. The number of good things and bad given in that text are eleven each, rather than ten as the term "shi shan shi e" 十善十悪 suggests. Further, the phrase "shi shan shi e" does not appear in the text even once. Thus, Hayashiya speculates that, if Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing is an alternate title of either the Shi shan shi e jing or the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in CSZJJ, it is more likely that it would apply to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing, sincethe term "shi shan shi e" does not straightforwardly match the content of T729. Hayashiya concludes that all attributions of translators to the different versions of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 should be omitted, because the source of those attributions, viz., LDSBJ, gives no ground the attributions it provides. Accordingly, probably the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 listed in CSZJJ was an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed on Dao’an’s list. The Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 is probably of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the W. Jin 西晋 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone. The title Yichu shi shan shi e jing may well just have been an alternate title of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, but since there is no decisive evidence either way, Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 should be retained as an independent title. (And if, as LDSBJ states, this title really was included in Zhu Daozu's Wu catalogue 竺道祖呉錄, it would be classified as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period or earlier.) Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 |
|
Hayashiya argues that this text is probably identical with Shi'er pin shengsi jing 十二品生死經 T753, and regards it as probably an anonymous scripture 失譯經 of the W. Jin 西晋 era (he cites as an example of typical W. Jin phraseology 佛說如是,比丘歡喜稽首而退). Note that this requires a revision of the ascription of T753 to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. Fajing 法經録 omits the title Shi'er si jing 十二死經 presumably because he identified this title with the Shi'er pin shengsi jing 十二品生死經. Hayashiya thinks Fajing's judgement was probably accurate, because the content of the extant T753 fits the title Shi'er si jing, and indeed, he argues that this title is probably the more accurate of the two. One possible sticking point for the identifcation of the two texts is that Sengyou's CSZJJ section on anonymous assorted scriptures 失譯雑經録 lists them separately, and also notes that in his time, both texts were still extant. This suggests that he may have seen two different texts, but it not entirely reliable, because, Hayashiya claims, Sengyou sometimes classified different titles as different texts without comparing the contents. Zhisheng's KYL partially corrected the prior record by listing this text as an anonymous text of the W. Jin on the basis of stylistic considerations but also kept a separate record of a text ascribed to Guṇabhadra, which Hayashiya regards as erroneous. |
484-485 |
Hayashiya argues that this text is probably identical with Shi'er pin shengsi jing 十二品生死經 T753, and regards it as probably an anonymous scripture 失譯經 of the W. Jin 西晋 era (he cites as an example of typical W. Jin phraseology 佛說如是,比丘歡喜稽首而退). Note that this requires a revision of the ascription of T753 to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅. Fajing 法經録 omits the title Shi'er si jing 十二死經 presumably because he identified this title with the Shi'er pin shengsi jing 十二品生死經. Hayashiya thinks Fajing's judgement was probably accurate, because the content of the extant T753 fits the title Shi'er si jing, and indeed, he argues that this title is probably the more accurate of the two. One possible sticking point for the identifcation of the two texts is that Sengyou's CSZJJ section on anonymous assorted scriptures 失譯雑經録 lists them separately, and also notes that in his time, both texts were still extant. This suggests that he may have seen two different texts, but it not entirely reliable, because, Hayashiya claims, Sengyou sometimes classified different titles as different texts without comparing the contents. Zhisheng's KYL partially corrected the prior record by listing this text as an anonymous text of the W. Jin on the basis of stylistic considerations but also kept a separate record of a text ascribed to Gunabhadra, which Hayashiya regards as erroneous. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Shi'er si jing, 十二死經 |
|
An Aba jing 阿拔經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Although the text was lost at the time of Sengyou, surely it had existed, since Dao’an recorded it. Nonetheless, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, LDSBJ 三寶記, and KYL 開元錄 do not list the text, at least under the title 阿拔經. This was apparently because the Aba jing 阿拔經 was considered to be the same text as the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scripture 失譯雜經錄. Dao'an's catalogue says that the Aba jing 阿拔經 is an alternate translation of a text from the Dīrghāgama 長阿含 T1. The Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures is also an extract 抄 of from an āgama 阿含, and has an alternate title Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經. Now, the editors of Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu saw a text called the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經. This text was an alternate translation of the Amozhou jing 阿摩晝經 in the Dīrghāgama T1(20). As such, probably the editors of Fajing judged that the Aba jing and the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures, viz., the Fanzhi Aba jing, were the same text. Accordingly, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed only the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經 (with a slight difference in orthography, 跋 for 颰), but omitted the Aba jing 阿拔經. This Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經, which itself has an alternate Abamona jing 阿拔摩納經, is an alternate title of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. Further, the Abamona jing 阿拔摩納經, another title of the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經, is also an alternate title of the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list. On this basis, we can see the reason that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu did not list two Aba jing: it considered Aba jing 阿拔經 to be an alternate title of the same text. Accepting Fajing’s judgment, we have to say that Sengyou made a mistake in listing the same text twice, by showing the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list, and recording the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing separately in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. Sengyou did not see the text of the Aba jing 阿拔經, because it was lost, and so his mistake is understandable. In any case, since we know that the Fanzhi Aba jing = the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing was also called as 阿拔摩納經, then the Aba jing 阿拔經 and the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 should be treated as the same text. This Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 is extant today as T20. Its vocabulary and tone are old, and it is natural to consider this text as the one in Dao’an’s list. Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in listing only one Fanzhi Aba jing. Jingtai records the length of the text as thirteen sheets 紙 long. T20 is about thirteen and a half registers 段 long, but there are verses in the text, so the length can be seen as roughly thirteen sheets. This being the case, it is almost certain that T20 is the text that has survived since the Sui 隋 period. Fajing and Yancong listed the Fanzhi Aba jing only, but did not say whether they relied on Dao’an’s list, or the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. As such, there is room for a misunderstanding that the description of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptureswas considered to be genuine, and the Aba jing in Dao’an was the one omitted (it should be the opposite: the Aba jing 阿拔經 was the one kept and 佛開解梵志阿颰經 was omitted in the catalogues). Hayashiya claims that, in order to avoid such confusion, it should have been made clear that the Aba jing was the initial entry and the Fo kaijie... was the entry that was omitted. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists two texts: a Fo kaijie Aba fanzhi jing 佛開解阿拔梵志經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, and a Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 ascribed to Fayong 法勇 in the E. Jin 東晋 period. LDSBJ provides no support for the ascription to Zhi Qian, while suggesting that the ascription to Fayong 法勇 is based on the Zhao catalogue 趙錄. The vocabulary and tone of the surviving T20 are highly unlikely to be Zhi Qian’s. They are not Fayong's, either, because they are too old to be his and because the Zhao catalouge 趙錄, the alleged source of the ascription, in principle does not show the name of the translator in each entry, so it is unlikely that catalogue actually stated that the text was Fayong's (Hayashiya refers to Chapter 7 in Part 2 of Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for a detailed discussion of the Zhao catalogue 趙錄). This being the case, it is safe to say that T20 is the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list, although the Taishō says that the text is Zhi Qian’s, following KYL 開元錄, which in turn adopted LDSBJ’s descriptions. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that CSZJJ 出三藏記集 is the only reliable source regarding the ascription of the Aba jing 阿拔經, and that LDSBJ’s classification of the two titles with different translators is doubly incorrect in showing two texts when there was only one, and in providing wrong and groundless attributions. Hence both entries should be eliminated. Hayashiya concludes that only the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list should be retained, as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
883-888 |
An Aba jing 阿拔經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Although the text was lost at the time of Sengyou, surely it had existed, since Dao’an recorded it. Nonetheless, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, LDSBJ 三寶記, and KYL 開元錄 do not list the text, at least under the title 阿拔經. This was apparently because the Aba jing 阿拔經 was considered to be the same text as the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scripture 失譯雜經錄. Dao'an's catalogue says that the Aba jing 阿拔經 is an alternate translation of a text from the Dirghagama 長阿含 T1. The Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures is also an extract 抄 of from an agama 阿含, and has an alternate title Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經. Now, the editors of Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu saw a text called the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經. This text was an alternate translation of the Amozhou jing 阿摩晝經 in the Dirghagama T1(20). As such, probably the editors of Fajing judged that the Aba jing and the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures, viz., the Fanzhi Aba jing, were the same text. Accordingly, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed only the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經 (with a slight difference in orthography, 跋 for 颰), but omitted the Aba jing 阿拔經. This Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經, which itself has an alternate Abamona jing 阿拔摩納經, is an alternate title of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. Further, the Abamona jing 阿拔摩納經, another title of the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經, is also an alternate title of the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list. On this basis, we can see the reason that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu did not list two Aba jing: it considered Aba jing 阿拔經 to be an alternate title of the same text. Accepting Fajing’s judgment, we have to say that Sengyou made a mistake in listing the same text twice, by showing the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list, and recording the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing separately in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. Sengyou did not see the text of the Aba jing 阿拔經, because it was lost, and so his mistake is understandable. In any case, since we know that the Fanzhi Aba jing = the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing was also called as 阿拔摩納經, then the Aba jing 阿拔經 and the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 should be treated as the same text. This Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 is extant today as T20. Its vocabulary and tone are old, and it is natural to consider this text as the one in Dao’an’s list. Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in listing only one Fanzhi Aba jing. Jingtai records the length of the text as thirteen sheets 紙 long. T20 is about thirteen and a half registers 段 long, but there are verses in the text, so the length can be seen as roughly thirteen sheets. This being the case, it is almost certain that T20 is the text that has survived since the Sui 隋 period. Fajing and Yancong listed the Fanzhi Aba jing only, but did not say whether they relied on Dao’an’s list, or the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. As such, there is room for a misunderstanding that the description of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptureswas considered to be genuine, and the Aba jing in Dao’an was the one omitted (it should be the opposite: the Aba jing 阿拔經 was the one kept and 佛開解梵志阿颰經 was omitted in the catalogues). Hayashiya claims that, in order to avoid such confusion, it should have been made clear that the Aba jing was the initial entry and the Fo kaijie... was the entry that was omitted. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists two texts: a Fo kaijie Aba fanzhi jing 佛開解阿拔梵志經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, and a Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 ascribed to Fayong 法勇 in the E. Jin 東晋 period. LDSBJ provides no support for the ascription to Zhi Qian, while suggesting that the ascription to Fayong 法勇 is based on the Zhao catalogue 趙錄. The vocabulary and tone of the surviving T20 are highly unlikely to be Zhi Qian’s. They are not Fayong's, either, because they are too old to be his and because the Zhao catalouge 趙錄, the alleged source of the ascription, in principle does not show the name of the translator in each entry, so it is unlikely that catalogue actually stated that the text was Fayong's (Hayashiya refers to Chapter 7 in Part 2 of Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for a detailed discussion of the Zhao catalogue 趙錄). This being the case, it is safe to say that T20 is the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list, although the Taisho says that the text is Zhi Qian’s, following KYL 開元錄, which in turn adopted LDSBJ’s descriptions. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that CSZJJ 出三藏記集 is the only reliable source regarding the ascription of the Aba jing 阿拔經, and that LDSBJ’s classification of the two titles with different translators is doubly incorrect in showing two texts when there was only one, and in providing wrong and groundless attributions. Hence both entries should be eliminated. Hayashiya concludes that only the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list should be retained, as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0020; 阿拔經; Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿跋經; 阿拔摩納經; Ambattha-sutra; 佛開解梵志阿颰經; 梵志阿颰經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄: There is a Qi zhi jing 七知經 in the Taishō, T27 is almost two sheets long, so it is the text listed in Jingtai and DTNDL. This being the case, those two catalogues are correct in using the title Qi zhi jing 七知經 rather than Qi shi jing 七事經, and one of the two entries on the Qi shi jing 七事經 in Yancong---in the category of repeat Hīnayāna translations---is erroneous and should have been written Qi zhi jing 七知經. Hayashiya therefore claims that the Qi zhi jing 七知經 in Yancong and Jingtai listed as a Hīnayāna offshoot sutra should be excised as redundant, since there already as the Qi zhi jing 七知經 (written Qi shi jing 七事經 in Yancong) as a repeat Hīnayāna translation 小乗經重譯. No translator is specified for this Qi zhi jing 七知經 by any of those catalogues. LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya concludes that the Qi zhi jing 七知經 is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, well-known in the Liangzhou 涼州 area. |
1064-1068 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Qi zhi jing 七智經 is listed in this catalogue and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists a Qi zhi jing 七知經, with an alternate title Qi zhi jing 七智經, as an offshoot sutra from the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄: Following Fajing, Yancong lists 七知經 as an offshoot sutra from the Madhyamagama中阿含. Yancong lists another title, the Qi shi jing 七事經, in two places: repeat Hinayana translations 小乗經重譯, and lost texts. Hayashiya points out that, strangely, Jingtai changes the title of the former one Qi shi jing 七事經 to 七知經, specifying its length as two sheets 紙. DTNDL does the same, listing the Qi zhi jing 七知經 instead of the Qi shi jing 七事經, with a length of two sheets. There is a Qi zhi jing 七知經 in the Taisho, T27 is almost two sheets long, so it is the text listed in Jingtai and DTNDL. This being the case, those two catalogues are correct in using the title Qi zhi jing 七知經 rather than Qi shi jing 七事經, and one of the two entries on the Qi shi jing 七事經 in Yancong---in the category of repeat Hinayana translations---is erroneous and should have been written Qi zhi jing 七知經. Hayashiya therefore claims that the Qi zhi jing 七知經 in Yancong and Jingtai listed as a Hinayana offshoot sutra should be excised as redundant, since there already as the Qi zhi jing 七知經 (written Qi shi jing 七事經 in Yancong) as a repeat Hinayana translation 小乗經重譯. No translator is specified for this Qi zhi jing 七知經 by any of those catalogues. LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: LDSBJ classifies the Qi zhi jing 七知經 as translated by Zhi Qian, and KYL followed LDSBJ in this regard. However, Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary and tone of T27 are clearly not Zhi Qian’s, although they are of the Wei 魏 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period. Thus, LDSBJ’s attribution must be rejected. Hayashiya also mentions that the fact that the 七知經 was not excised in KYL indicates that the text was extant, because Zhisheng 智昇 tends to excise offshoot sutras. Hayashiya concludes that the Qi zhi jing 七知經 is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, well-known in the Liangzhou 涼州 area. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0027; 七智經; 七知經 |
|
A Fa hai jing 法海經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯. It was one of eleven entries that was added when Sengyou recompiled the catalogue. It was lost in Sengyou’s time. Nonetheless, Hayashiya claims that it is safe to regard the Fa hai jing 法海經 T34 as the same text listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue. This text is an alternate translation of the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經. There are twelve texts with similar content in this group, T34. Hayashiya refers to Chapter 2 of Hayashiya 1945 for detailed discussion on this group of texts. LDSBJ 三寶記 and some other catalogues that followed it classify T34 as Faju's 法炬 translation. Hayashiya compares this text with surviving translations by Faju, viz., the Zhude futian jing 諸徳福田經 T683 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211, and claims that the vocabulary and tone of T34 is quite different from that of those two texts, but that the latter two texts are clearly composed by the same person. Thus, the attribution of the T34 to Faju must be wrong. Hayuashiya concludes that the text should be classifies as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, since it is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue. |
944-947 |
A Fa hai jing 法海經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯. It was one of eleven entries that was added when Sengyou recompiled the catalogue. It was lost in Sengyou’s time. Nonetheless, Hayashiya claims that it is safe to regard the Fa hai jing 法海經 T34 as the same text listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue. This text is an alternate translation of the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經. There are twelve texts with similar content in this group, T34. Hayashiya refers to Chapter 2 of Hayashiya 1945 for detailed discussion on this group of texts. LDSBJ 三寶記 and some other catalogues that followed it classify T34 as Faju's 法炬 translation. Hayashiya compares this text with surviving translations by Faju, viz., the Zhude futian jing 諸徳福田經 T683 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211, and claims that the vocabulary and tone of T34 is quite different from that of those two texts, but that the latter two texts are clearly composed by the same person. Thus, the attribution of the T34 to Faju must be wrong. Hayuashiya concludes that the text should be classifies as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, since it is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0034; 法海經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of scriptures from the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經錄: Hayashiya presents his conclusion about the identity of Ba de jing in Dao'an's Guanzhong catalogue as follows. This title refers to the same text as the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. It is extant as the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 T35 ascribed to Kumārajīva 羅什. However, Hayashiya claims that this text is an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. |
1113-1114 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of scriptures from the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經錄: A Ba de jing 八徳經 is listed in this catalogue, and was already lost at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya maintains that, since there are many titles and texts related to this Ba de jing 八徳經, it is not possible to discuss the history of the record of this text without examining the group of those related texts in a comprehensive manner. He refers to his own 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 2. Hayashiya presents his conclusion about the identity of Ba de jing in Dao'an's Guanzhong catalogue as follows. This title refers to the same text as the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. It is extant as the Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 T35 ascribed to Kumarajiva 羅什. However, Hayashiya claims that this text is an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0035; 八徳經; 海八德經 |
|
A Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows this text as identical with Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 since Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is an alternate translation of the Si zhou jing 四洲經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26.60 [A Taishō note equates this text to Divyāvadāna nos. 39, 40]. However, Sengyou 僧祐 listed the Dingsheng wang gushi jing separately in his catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, along with another text with a similar title, the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經. Both of these tests were extant in Sengyou’s time. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, these three texts are different from one another. In the Taishō, we have extant the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經T40 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39, which are alternate translations of the Sizhou jing 四洲經. The styles of both texts show clearly that they were produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya points out also that the word Dingsheng wang 頂生王is not used in the Wentuojie wang jing T40, and Wentuojie wang is not used in the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39. The Sanskrit word for Wentuojie wang 文陀竭王 must have been Māndhātṛ or Māndhātā, and the word for Dingsheng wang 頂生王 should have been Mūrdhagata or Mūrdata. Thus, it could not have been the case that the Wentuojie wang jing T40 was initially called Dingsheng wang gushi jing or Dingshengwang yinyuan jing, nor that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 was initially called the Wentuojie wang jing. Thus, it is safe to regard the Wentuojie wang jing T40 as identical with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 in Dao'an's list, and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 as corresponding either to the title Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 or Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as recorded in Sengyou's catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and some other catalogues that followed it, are therefore incorrect in classifying the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as the same text, while omitting the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 altogether. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記, and following it, KYL 開元錄, treated the three titles as different: but they give the Wangtuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 as translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖; the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as translated by Faju 法炬; and the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of these attributions are incorrect or groundless. [For his arguments about T40, see the separate entry on T40.] It remains undetermined whether the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經T39 corresponds to the Dingsheng wang gushi jing or the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing in Sengyou's list of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, but there is no support at all for the claim that either of these was translated by Faju 法炬. If T39 is the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 of Sengyou's list 失譯雑經錄, it must be an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. [For Hayashiya’s arguments about the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經, see the separate record.] |
768-775 |
A Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows this text as identical with Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 since Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is an alternate translation of the Si zhou jing 四洲經 in the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26.60 [A Taisho note equates this text to Divyavadana nos. 39, 40]. However, Sengyou 僧祐 listed the Dingsheng wang gushi jing separately in his catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, along with another text with a similar title, the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經. Both of these tests were extant in Sengyou’s time. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, these three texts are different from one another. In the Taisho, we have extant the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經T40 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39, which are alternate translations of the Sizhou jing 四洲經. The styles of both texts show clearly that they were produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya points out also that the word Dingsheng wang 頂生王is not used in the Wentuojie wang jing T40, and Wentuojie wang is not used in the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39. The Sanskrit word for Wentuojie wang 文陀竭王 must have been Mandhatr or Mandhata, and the word for Dingsheng wang 頂生王 should have been Murdhagata or Murdata. Thus, it could not have been the case that the Wentuojie wang jing T40 was initially called Dingsheng wang gushi jing or Dingshengwang yinyuan jing, nor that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 was initially called the Wentuojie wang jing. Thus, it is safe to regard the Wentuojie wang jing T40 as identical with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 in Dao'an's list, and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 as corresponding either to the title Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 or Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as recorded in Sengyou's catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and some other catalogues that followed it, are therefore incorrect in classifying the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as the same text, while omitting the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 altogether. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記, and following it, KYL 開元錄, treated the three titles as different: but they give the Wangtuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 as translated by *Dharmaksema 曇無讖; the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as translated by Faju 法炬; and the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of these attributions are incorrect or groundless. [For his arguments about T40, see the separate entry on T40.] It remains undetermined whether the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經T39 corresponds to the Dingsheng wang gushi jing or the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing in Sengyou's list of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, but there is no support at all for the claim that either of these was translated by Faju 法炬. If T39 is the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 of Sengyou's list 失譯雑經錄, it must be an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. [For Hayashiya’s arguments about the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經, see the separate record.] Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0039; *Murdhagata-sutra?; *Murdata-sutra?; 頂生王故事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" |
|
A Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows this text as identical with Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 since Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is an alternate translation of the Si zhou jing 四洲經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26.60 [A Taishō note equates this text to Divyāvadāna nos. 39, 40]. However, Sengyou 僧祐 listed the Dingsheng wang gushi jing separately in his catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, along with another text with a similar title, the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經. Both of these tests were extant in Sengyou’s time. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, these three texts are different from one another. In the Taishō, we have extant the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經T40 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39, which are alternate translations of the Sizhou jing 四洲經. The styles of both texts show clearly that they were produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya points out also that the word Dingsheng wang 頂生王is not used in the Wentuojie wang jing T40, and Wentuojie wang is not used in the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39. The Sanskrit word for Wentuojie wang 文陀竭王 must have been Māndhātṛ or Māndhātā, and the word for Dingsheng wang 頂生王 should have been Mūrdhagata or Mūrdata. Thus, it could not have been the case that the Wentuojie wang jing T40 was initially called Dingsheng wang gushi jing or Dingshengwang yinyuan jing, nor that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 was initially called the Wentuojie wang jing. Thus, it is safe to regard the Wentuojie wang jing T40 as identical with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 in Dao'an's list, and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 as corresponding either to the title Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 or Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as recorded in Sengyou's catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and some other catalogues that followed it, are therefore incorrect in classifying the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as the same text, while omitting the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 altogether. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記, and following it, KYL 開元錄, treated the three titles as different: they give the Wangtuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 as translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖; the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as translated by Faju 法炬; and the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of these attributions are incorrect or groundless. The Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 could not have been translated by Dharmakṣema, since it was produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and should be classified as an anonymous scripture. It remains undetermined whether the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經T39 corresponds to the Dingsheng wang gushi jing or the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing in Sengyou's list of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, but there is no support at all for the claim that either of these was translated by Faju 法炬. If T39 is the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 of Sengyou's list 失譯雑經錄, it must be an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and the ascription of the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 should remain unspecified, since there is no evidence that anybody after Sengyou ever saw the content of the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing given in his list. It was first alleged that the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 was produced in the Latter Han period in LDSBJ 三寶記, but without any reasonable support, so Hayashiya sets the possible production date of that text as sometime between the Latter Han 後漢 and Song-Qi 宋齊periods. |
768-775 |
A Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows this text as identical with Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 since Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is an alternate translation of the Si zhou jing 四洲經 in the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26.60 [A Taisho note equates this text to Divyavadana nos. 39, 40]. However, Sengyou 僧祐 listed the Dingsheng wang gushi jing separately in his catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, along with another text with a similar title, the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經. Both of these tests were extant in Sengyou’s time. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, these three texts are different from one another. In the Taisho, we have extant the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經T40 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39, which are alternate translations of the Sizhou jing 四洲經. The styles of both texts show clearly that they were produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya points out also that the word Dingsheng wang 頂生王is not used in the Wentuojie wang jing T40, and Wentuojie wang is not used in the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39. The Sanskrit word for Wentuojie wang 文陀竭王 must have been Mandhatr or Mandhata, and the word for Dingsheng wang 頂生王 should have been Murdhagata or Murdata. Thus, it could not have been the case that the Wentuojie wang jing T40 was initially called Dingsheng wang gushi jing or Dingshengwang yinyuan jing, nor that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 was initially called the Wentuojie wang jing. Thus, it is safe to regard the Wentuojie wang jing T40 as identical with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 in Dao'an's list, and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 as corresponding either to the title Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 or Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as recorded in Sengyou's catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and some other catalogues that followed it, are therefore incorrect in classifying the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as the same text, while omitting the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 altogether. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記, and following it, KYL 開元錄, treated the three titles as different: they give the Wangtuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 as translated by *Dharmaksema 曇無讖; the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as translated by Faju 法炬; and the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of these attributions are incorrect or groundless. The Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 could not have been translated by Dharmaksema, since it was produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and should be classified as an anonymous scripture. It remains undetermined whether the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經T39 corresponds to the Dingsheng wang gushi jing or the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing in Sengyou's list of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, but there is no support at all for the claim that either of these was translated by Faju 法炬. If T39 is the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 of Sengyou's list 失譯雑經錄, it must be an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and the ascription of the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 should remain unspecified, since there is no evidence that anybody after Sengyou ever saw the content of the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing given in his list. It was first alleged that the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 was produced in the Latter Han period in LDSBJ 三寶記, but without any reasonable support, so Hayashiya sets the possible production date of that text as sometime between the Latter Han 後漢 and Song-Qi 宋齊periods. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0040; 文陀竭王經; *Mandhatr-sutra? |
|
The Ba nian jing 八念經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu clarifies that this text is an alternate translation of the Ba nian jing 八念經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26(74). Also, Fajing regards this text as the same text as the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經, a text which CSZJJ 出三藏記集 classified as an unseen scripture in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Hayashiya points out that the Ba nian jing 八念經 survived, because the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 T46 could also just as easily be called the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經, since phrases containing the character lian 撿 frequently appear in T46: e.g. 當學四禪撿意觀法, 四禪爲撿意法, in which jian/lian 撿 is most likely to be an alternate orthography for 斂. Hayashiya maintains that Sengyou 僧祐 kept the Ba nian jing 八念經 and the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 separate only because he had not seen the Chan xing lian yi jing, not because the two were actually different. There is also a Jian(/lian) yi xiang zheng jing 撿意向正經 listed as an unseen scripture in the catalogue of asserted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. This text may well be also feature the same orthographic variant in its title, thus: 斂意向正經, which should be another alternate title for the same Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經. If that is the case, the Jian yi xiang zheng jing 撿意向正經 in LDSBJ 三寶記, which is classified as a composition of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, should be deleted. The catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 features yet another title that could be confusing, the Analü qi nian zhang jing 阿那律七念章經. Some later catalogues regarded this Analü qi nian zhang jing and the Analü ba nian jing as the same text, but both were extant at the time of Sengyou, so they should be regarded as different texts. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 also regard the Ba nian jing 八念經 as an extant anonymous scripture. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 as translated by Zhi Yao 支曜 in the Latter Han 後漢 period [citing the Jiu lu: 阿那律八念經一卷(或直云八念經。見舊錄, T2034 (XLIX) 54a7 --- MR] and the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hayashiya rejects these attributions. First of all, Hayashiya points out that the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 and the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 are most likely to be the same text. Among his other arguments against LDSBJ 三寶記, Hayashiya asserts that the classification of the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 as composed in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period is not supported at all, because the note to the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 is copied almost verbatim from the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, which says nothing about the date of composition. The Wei-Wu 魏呉 date was added arbitrarily by LDSBJ 三寶記. Hayashiya also claims that the vocabulary and tone of T46 is very different from that of the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 T630, a text which Dao'an's list and all other catalogues agree is by Zhi Yao. T46 therefore cannot be Zhi Yao’s work. Still, following LDSBJ, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 [T2153 (LV) 419c16-17] and KYL 開元錄 [T2154 (LV) 482c12-13, 612a7-8 etc.] wrongly recorded the Analü ba nian jing as Zhi Yao's translation. The Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經, Hayashiya contends, is therefore an anonymous scripture, and its vocabulary and tone suggest that it was produced in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, but possibly as early as the Latter Han 後漢 period. The Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 and the Lian (jian) yi xiang zheng jing 斂意向正經 in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 should be eliminated, because they are alternate titles of this same text. |
802-807 |
The Ba nian jing 八念經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu clarifies that this text is an alternate translation of the Ba nian jing 八念經 in the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26(74). Also, Fajing regards this text as the same text as the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經, a text which CSZJJ 出三藏記集 classified as an unseen scripture in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Hayashiya points out that the Ba nian jing 八念經 survived, because the Analu ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 T46 could also just as easily be called the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經, since phrases containing the character lian 撿 frequently appear in T46: e.g. 當學四禪撿意觀法, 四禪爲撿意法, in which jian/lian 撿 is most likely to be an alternate orthography for 斂. Hayashiya maintains that Sengyou 僧祐 kept the Ba nian jing 八念經 and the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 separate only because he had not seen the Chan xing lian yi jing, not because the two were actually different. There is also a Jian(/lian) yi xiang zheng jing 撿意向正經 listed as an unseen scripture in the catalogue of asserted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. This text may well be also feature the same orthographic variant in its title, thus: 斂意向正經, which should be another alternate title for the same Analu ba nian jing 阿那律八念經. If that is the case, the Jian yi xiang zheng jing 撿意向正經 in LDSBJ 三寶記, which is classified as a composition of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, should be deleted. The catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 features yet another title that could be confusing, the Analu qi nian zhang jing 阿那律七念章經. Some later catalogues regarded this Analu qi nian zhang jing and the Analu ba nian jing as the same text, but both were extant at the time of Sengyou, so they should be regarded as different texts. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 also regard the Ba nian jing 八念經 as an extant anonymous scripture. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists the Analu ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 as translated by Zhi Yao 支曜 in the Latter Han 後漢 period [citing the Jiu lu: 阿那律八念經一卷(或直云八念經。見舊錄, T2034 (XLIX) 54a7 --- MR] and the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hayashiya rejects these attributions. First of all, Hayashiya points out that the Analu ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 and the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 are most likely to be the same text. Among his other arguments against LDSBJ 三寶記, Hayashiya asserts that the classification of the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 as composed in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period is not supported at all, because the note to the Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 is copied almost verbatim from the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, which says nothing about the date of composition. The Wei-Wu 魏呉 date was added arbitrarily by LDSBJ 三寶記. Hayashiya also claims that the vocabulary and tone of T46 is very different from that of the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 T630, a text which Dao'an's list and all other catalogues agree is by Zhi Yao. T46 therefore cannot be Zhi Yao’s work. Still, following LDSBJ, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 [T2153 (LV) 419c16-17] and KYL 開元錄 [T2154 (LV) 482c12-13, 612a7-8 etc.] wrongly recorded the Analu ba nian jing as Zhi Yao's translation. The Analu ba nian jing 阿那律八念經, Hayashiya contends, is therefore an anonymous scripture, and its vocabulary and tone suggest that it was produced in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, but possibly as early as the Latter Han 後漢 period. The Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經 and the Lian (jian) yi xiang zheng jing 斂意向正經 in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 should be eliminated, because they are alternate titles of this same text. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0046; 阿那律八念經; Jian yi xiang zheng jing 撿意向正經; Chan xing lian yi jing 禪行斂意經; Ba nian jing 八念經 |
|
The Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 (T2145:55.16c22) as an extant text. This text was an alternate translation of the Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26(113). As such, Fajing, Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄 listed it as an anonymous scripture, with a simple description. Jingtai states that the text is three sheets 紙 long, so we can know it existed up to the point of that catalogue. LDSBJ 三寶記 listed this text as Zhi Qian's translation, but this ascription is groundless. Moreover, the vocabulary and tone of 諸法本經 T59 are, although of the W. Jin 西晋 period, clearly not Zhi Qian's (for detailed explanations, Hayashiya referes to his own 譯者別譯經の研究 chapter entitled 支謙譯經の研究. Thus, it is safe to reject LDSBJ’s ascription to Zhi Qian. Still, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ’s description, and KYL 開元錄 did the same. Because of this, the extant canon ascribes T59 Zhi Qian. However, since the source of this ascription, i.e., LDSBJ is groundless in this regard, this text should be re-classified as as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. One oddity is the length of this text shown in some catalogues: Jingtai says that it is three sheets 紙 long, DZKZM says two sheets, and KYL says one sheet. The text was extant at one time, and no other similar text is know to ever have existed. Thus, Hayashiya claims that, judging from the length of T59, it is safe to assume that this Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經 was one sheet in length, and Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DZKZM must have made a mistake or been miscopied. |
833-835 |
The Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 (T2145:55.16c22) as an extant text. This text was an alternate translation of the Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經 in the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26(113). As such, Fajing, Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄 listed it as an anonymous scripture, with a simple description. Jingtai states that the text is three sheets 紙 long, so we can know it existed up to the point of that catalogue. LDSBJ 三寶記 listed this text as Zhi Qian's translation, but this ascription is groundless. Moreover, the vocabulary and tone of 諸法本經 T59 are, although of the W. Jin 西晋 period, clearly not Zhi Qian's (for detailed explanations, Hayashiya referes to his own 譯者別譯經の研究 chapter entitled 支謙譯經の研究. Thus, it is safe to reject LDSBJ’s ascription to Zhi Qian. Still, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ’s description, and KYL 開元錄 did the same. Because of this, the extant canon ascribes T59 Zhi Qian. However, since the source of this ascription, i.e., LDSBJ is groundless in this regard, this text should be re-classified as as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. One oddity is the length of this text shown in some catalogues: Jingtai says that it is three sheets 紙 long, DZKZM says two sheets, and KYL says one sheet. The text was extant at one time, and no other similar text is know to ever have existed. Thus, Hayashiya claims that, judging from the length of T59, it is safe to assume that this Zhufa ben jing 諸法本經 was one sheet in length, and Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DZKZM must have made a mistake or been miscopied. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0059; 諸法本經 |
|
Hayashiya rejects the possibility mentioned by Tokiwa in Yakukyōsōroku, that the Shou xin sui jing 受新歳經 T61 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 may be the 新歳經 in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Hayashiya maintains that Tokiwa made this suggestion because he was assuming that the ascription of T62 to Tanwulan was correct, and would not have done so had he known that that ascription was incorrect. Furthermore, Hayashiya adds, T61 does not use the term xinsui 新歳 even once, although it uses the phrases shou xin sui 受新歳 and shou sui 受歳. Thus, Hayashiya maintain that the Shou xin sui jing 受新歳經 T61 is not the Xinsui jing of Dao'an's catalogue. Instead, he claims that T61 is probably the Shou sui jing 受歳經 included in the category of extant texts in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, stating that he would explain this view further when he investigates that catalogue in detail in the future. |
694 |
Hayashiya rejects the possibility mentioned by Tokiwa in Yakukyosoroku, that the Shou xin sui jing 受新歳經 T61 ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護 may be the 新歳經 in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Hayashiya maintains that Tokiwa made this suggestion because he was assuming that the ascription of T62 to Tanwulan was correct, and would not have done so had he known that that ascription was incorrect. Furthermore, Hayashiya adds, T61 does not use the term xinsui 新歳 even once, although it uses the phrases shou xin sui 受新歳 and shou sui 受歳. Thus, Hayashiya maintain that the Shou xin sui jing 受新歳經 T61 is not the Xinsui jing of Dao'an's catalogue. Instead, he claims that T61 is probably the Shou sui jing 受歳經 included in the category of extant texts in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, stating that he would explain this view further when he investigates that catalogue in detail in the future. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0061; 受新歲經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Xinsui jing 新歳經 and related titles is as follows: A Xinsui jing 新歳經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Xinsui jing in 1 juan. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Xinsui jing, with the alternate title Poheluo jing 婆惒羅經, as an anonymous scripture in its catalogue of the “Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka” 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) records the same information as Fajing in the group of single Hīnayāna translations 小乗經單譯. Jingtai 靜泰錄 also records the same in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本, stating that the text is five sheets in length. Hayashiya points out that the inclusion of the Xinsui jing in Yancong, a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄 of the Sui period, and in Jingtai, that of the Tang period, shows that the text was extant in those periods. According to Hayashiya, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 lists the Xinsui jing, but does not record its length. KYL includes the text in the group of extant single Hīnayāna translations 有譯有本小乗經單譯 and also in its catalogue of the extant canon, so it is clear that the text was extant at the time of KYL as well. KYL states that the text is six sheets in length. Hayashiya claims that the difference between the lengths recorded in Jingtai and KYL is due the difference of the writing formats the two catalogues use. Hayashiya next examines the Xinsui jing 新歳經 T62 in the Taishō ascribed to 曇無蘭 Tanwulan. T62 is slightly longer than six registers in the format of the Taishō. Hayashiya argues that that length matches well the lengths shown in Jingtai and KYL, because, as the text contains quite a few verses, the length of actual words without the space between the lines of the verses is just within five sheets in Jingtai’s format and six sheets in KYL’s. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that T62 is the Xinsui jing recorded in the catalogues since the Sui period. Hayashiya points out that a text slightly longer than one register is added at the end of T62. This text consists of one [two? MR] block of verse and some prose. [According to the T apparatus, the text in question should be 860c11 ff., which 860 n. 10 notes is missing in YM --- MR.] Hayashiya claims that this part should have already been part of the scripture in the Sui period, for the following reason: As mentioned above, Fajing shows the alternate title Poheluo jing 婆惒羅經. Being a transcription of pravāraṇā/pavāraṇā, 婆惒羅 means the same thing as zizi 自恣. Although the word xinsui 新歳 is used for zizi 自恣 in the main part of T62, in the added part the word bohelan 鉢和蘭 is used instead. Hayashiya claims that bohelan 鉢和蘭 and boheluo 婆惒羅 are basically the same word, since the difference between the two could have been produced in the process of transcribing the text as it was transmitted orally. Hence, the alternate title Boheluo jing 婆惒羅經 shown in Fajing should have been given to the text after the inclusion of the additional part including bohelan 鉢和蘭. (This also means that the added part should be taken into account in comparing the lengths recorded in the catalogues.) As mentioned above, the main part of T62 uses the term xinsui 新歳 repeatedly. Also, it has the style of the W. Jin period. For these reasons, Hayashiya affirms that T62 is the Xinsui jing listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. He rejects the ascription to Tanwulan given initially by LDSBJ, which was inherited by KYL and the Taishō, stating that it is clearly groundless. |
692-694 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Xinsui jing 新歳經 and related titles is as follows: A Xinsui jing 新歳經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Xinsui jing in 1 juan. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Xinsui jing, with the alternate title Poheluo jing 婆惒羅經, as an anonymous scripture in its catalogue of the “Hinayana sutrapitaka” 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) records the same information as Fajing in the group of single Hinayana translations 小乗經單譯. Jingtai 靜泰錄 also records the same in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本, stating that the text is five sheets in length. Hayashiya points out that the inclusion of the Xinsui jing in Yancong, a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄 of the Sui period, and in Jingtai, that of the Tang period, shows that the text was extant in those periods. According to Hayashiya, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 lists the Xinsui jing, but does not record its length. KYL includes the text in the group of extant single Hinayana translations 有譯有本小乗經單譯 and also in its catalogue of the extant canon, so it is clear that the text was extant at the time of KYL as well. KYL states that the text is six sheets in length. Hayashiya claims that the difference between the lengths recorded in Jingtai and KYL is due the difference of the writing formats the two catalogues use. Hayashiya next examines the Xinsui jing 新歳經 T62 in the Taisho ascribed to 曇無蘭 Tanwulan. T62 is slightly longer than six registers in the format of the Taisho. Hayashiya argues that that length matches well the lengths shown in Jingtai and KYL, because, as the text contains quite a few verses, the length of actual words without the space between the lines of the verses is just within five sheets in Jingtai’s format and six sheets in KYL’s. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that T62 is the Xinsui jing recorded in the catalogues since the Sui period. Hayashiya points out that a text slightly longer than one register is added at the end of T62. This text consists of one [two? MR] block of verse and some prose. [According to the T apparatus, the text in question should be 860c11 ff., which 860 n. 10 notes is missing in YM --- MR.] Hayashiya claims that this part should have already been part of the scripture in the Sui period, for the following reason: As mentioned above, Fajing shows the alternate title Poheluo jing 婆惒羅經. Being a transcription of pravarana/pavarana, 婆惒羅 means the same thing as zizi 自恣. Although the word xinsui 新歳 is used for zizi 自恣 in the main part of T62, in the added part the word bohelan 鉢和蘭 is used instead. Hayashiya claims that bohelan 鉢和蘭 and boheluo 婆惒羅 are basically the same word, since the difference between the two could have been produced in the process of transcribing the text as it was transmitted orally. Hence, the alternate title Boheluo jing 婆惒羅經 shown in Fajing should have been given to the text after the inclusion of the additional part including bohelan 鉢和蘭. (This also means that the added part should be taken into account in comparing the lengths recorded in the catalogues.) As mentioned above, the main part of T62 uses the term xinsui 新歳 repeatedly. Also, it has the style of the W. Jin period. For these reasons, Hayashiya affirms that T62 is the Xinsui jing listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. He rejects the ascription to Tanwulan given initially by LDSBJ, which was inherited by KYL and the Taisho, stating that it is clearly groundless. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0062; 新歲經; 婆惒羅經 |
|
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles found in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. He focuses on ten out of fourteen such ascriptions, since the other four are discussed elsewhere (where Hayashiya argues that they are incorrect). The titles of the ten texts in LDSBJ are as follows (Taishō title, if it differs, is noted separately; followed by Dao’an’s title; alternate titles and notes omitted for simplicity): Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing 阿難多洹羅云母經 [Luoyun mu jing 羅云母經] The other four titles discussed by Hayashiya elsewhere in the same work (Kyōroku kenkyū) are: Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經, Anan nian Mile jing 阿難念彌勒經, and Pinsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經. Among these four, Hayashiya points out that the Sanshiqi pin jing (one of four texts referred to by the same title ) was composed 撰述 by Tanwulan, not translated by him (821-828). The other three are “ghost scriptures,” fabricated by Fei Changfang 費長房 to add to existing entries with the same or similar titles. Hayashiya states that those four cases give us a reason to suspect the validity of LDSBJ’s record of the other ten titles. Hayashiya point out that, first, since Dao’an’s catalogue generally collects translated scriptures of or before the W. Jin 西晋 period, any texts included in the catalogue should not be works of Tanwulan, who flourished during the E. Jin 東晋. Still, he claims that there may be some exceptional cases, so it is better to examine each case separately, firstly by investigating the grounds for those ascriptions, and secondly by evaluating the writing style of language of those scriptures. Hayashiya also asserts that Fei Changfang does not show any convincing grounds for those ascriptions to Tanwulan. Hayashiya makes this point by rejecting two sources that Fei mentions in LDSBJ. First, LDSBJ cites the “old catalogue” 舊錄 as the source of the ascription of four of the ten titles, namely Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing, Zi’ai jing, Qi meng jing, and Hediao anahan jing. However, Hayashiya points out that the “old catalogue” focuses on showing the titles of scriptures and the sources of their alternative titles, so it should not have anything to do with ascriptions to Tanwulan. Second, according to Hayashiya, Fei suggests that most of the ascriptions to Tanwulan are based on the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of Song scriptures” 宋時衆經別錄. Hayashiya maintains that this claim of Fei's is untrue for the following three reasons: 1) Like the old catalogue, the “separate catalogue” does not aim to provide ascriptions; 2) Since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources for Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed more than one hundred texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing; and 3) Although Sengyou must have seen the “separate catalogue”, he regarded only two titles, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經, as the work of Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that all the ascriptions to Tanwulan shown in LDSBJ are not based on reliable sources, except for the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經. Hayashiya next moves on to the evaluation of the writing style of these scriptures. Luckily, nine out of the ten scriptures ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ are extant (as listed above). The Taishō ascribes all of those nine texts to Tanwulan, since it follows KYL in principle, which in turn relies very often on LDSBJ. Hayashiya maintains that the nine texts in the Taishō are the same as those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and in LDSBJ. Hayashiya admits that, judging from their style, all of these nine texts must have been produced at or before the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, so that in terms of period, it is not impossible that they are the work of Tanwulan. However, Hayashiya argues that there is no uniform style among the nine texts. He also points out that, among other extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ, there are diverse styles, such as that of the Latter Han 後漢 period, or that later than the Song and Qi 宋齋 periods, and hence there is no text among them that can be reliably ascribed to Tanwulan (he refers to his own “Dommuran yakkyō no kenkyū 竺無蘭譯經の研究” for detailed discussions about each title). Hayashiya conjectures that some of the double ascriptions that Changfang gives to some of those titles ascribed to Tanwulan may be part of his efforts to make less noticeable the inconsistency among the styles of the texts. Furthermore, Hayashiya claims that the only texts that are established as Tanwulan’s work, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing, are not extant (the extant Sanshiqi pin jing is actually the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, and the extant Xianjie qian Fo jing is much newer than it should be, as it is included in the Liang catalogue 梁錄 of the Taishō ). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no way to determine which texts are the work of Tanwulan based on style and language, and hence it is not certain if any genuine Tanwulan work is extant. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan as follows: 1. Tanwulan’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; Hayashiya adds that he does not deal with the Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing, the only lost text among the ten titles, because these general considerations already give us good reasons to safely reject the ascription. |
660-668 |
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles found in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. He focuses on ten out of fourteen such ascriptions, since the other four are discussed elsewhere (where Hayashiya argues that they are incorrect). The titles of the ten texts in LDSBJ are as follows (Taisho title, if it differs, is noted separately; followed by Dao’an’s title; alternate titles and notes omitted for simplicity): Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing 阿難多洹羅云母經 [Luoyun mu jing 羅云母經] Zhengjian jing 見正經 (T796) [Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經)] Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不梨先泥十夢經 (T148) [Shi meng jing 十夢經] Zi’ai jing 自愛經 (T742) [Zi’ai buzi’ai jing 自愛不自愛經] Yuye jing 玉耶經 (T143) [Qi fu jing 七婦經] Xin sui jing 新歳經 (T62) [Xin sui jing 新歳經] Qi meng jing 七夢經 (Anan qi meng jing 阿難七夢經 T494) [Anan ba meng jing 阿難八夢經] Wu ku jing 五苦經 T741 [Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經] Hediao anahan jing 荷鵰阿那含經 (Hediao anahan jing 呵雕阿那鋡經 T538) [Hediao anahan jing 呵調阿那含經] Jie de jing 戒徳經 (Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 T116) [Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經] The other four titles discussed by Hayashiya elsewhere in the same work (Kyoroku kenkyu) are: Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經, Anan nian Mile jing 阿難念彌勒經, and Pinsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經. Among these four, Hayashiya points out that the Sanshiqi pin jing (one of four texts referred to by the same title ) was composed 撰述 by Tanwulan, not translated by him (821-828). The other three are “ghost scriptures,” fabricated by Fei Changfang 費長房 to add to existing entries with the same or similar titles. Hayashiya states that those four cases give us a reason to suspect the validity of LDSBJ’s record of the other ten titles. Hayashiya point out that, first, since Dao’an’s catalogue generally collects translated scriptures of or before the W. Jin 西晋 period, any texts included in the catalogue should not be works of Tanwulan, who flourished during the E. Jin 東晋. Still, he claims that there may be some exceptional cases, so it is better to examine each case separately, firstly by investigating the grounds for those ascriptions, and secondly by evaluating the writing style of language of those scriptures. Hayashiya also asserts that Fei Changfang does not show any convincing grounds for those ascriptions to Tanwulan. Hayashiya makes this point by rejecting two sources that Fei mentions in LDSBJ. First, LDSBJ cites the “old catalogue” 舊錄 as the source of the ascription of four of the ten titles, namely Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing, Zi’ai jing, Qi meng jing, and Hediao anahan jing. However, Hayashiya points out that the “old catalogue” focuses on showing the titles of scriptures and the sources of their alternative titles, so it should not have anything to do with ascriptions to Tanwulan. Second, according to Hayashiya, Fei suggests that most of the ascriptions to Tanwulan are based on the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of Song scriptures” 宋時衆經別錄. Hayashiya maintains that this claim of Fei's is untrue for the following three reasons: 1) Like the old catalogue, the “separate catalogue” does not aim to provide ascriptions; 2) Since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources for Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed more than one hundred texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing; and 3) Although Sengyou must have seen the “separate catalogue”, he regarded only two titles, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經, as the work of Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that all the ascriptions to Tanwulan shown in LDSBJ are not based on reliable sources, except for the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經. Hayashiya next moves on to the evaluation of the writing style of these scriptures. Luckily, nine out of the ten scriptures ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ are extant (as listed above). The Taisho ascribes all of those nine texts to Tanwulan, since it follows KYL in principle, which in turn relies very often on LDSBJ. Hayashiya maintains that the nine texts in the Taisho are the same as those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and in LDSBJ. Hayashiya admits that, judging from their style, all of these nine texts must have been produced at or before the time of Kumarajiva 羅什, so that in terms of period, it is not impossible that they are the work of Tanwulan. However, Hayashiya argues that there is no uniform style among the nine texts. He also points out that, among other extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ, there are diverse styles, such as that of the Latter Han 後漢 period, or that later than the Song and Qi 宋齋 periods, and hence there is no text among them that can be reliably ascribed to Tanwulan (he refers to his own “Dommuran yakkyo no kenkyu 竺無蘭譯經の研究” for detailed discussions about each title). Hayashiya conjectures that some of the double ascriptions that Changfang gives to some of those titles ascribed to Tanwulan may be part of his efforts to make less noticeable the inconsistency among the styles of the texts. Furthermore, Hayashiya claims that the only texts that are established as Tanwulan’s work, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing, are not extant (the extant Sanshiqi pin jing is actually the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, and the extant Xianjie qian Fo jing is much newer than it should be, as it is included in the Liang catalogue 梁錄 of the Taisho ). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no way to determine which texts are the work of Tanwulan based on style and language, and hence it is not certain if any genuine Tanwulan work is extant. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan as follows: 1. Tanwulan’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; 2. The sources that Fei mentions could not have contained the information that he says he saw; 3. There is no extant work by Tanwulan upon the basis of which we could determine which texts should be ascribed to him; 4. There are titles ascribed to Tanwulan that are established as incorrect for simple reasons, such as the titles being “ghost scriptures.” Hayashiya adds that he does not deal with the Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing, the only lost text among the ten titles, because these general considerations already give us good reasons to safely reject the ascription. T0062; 新歲經; 婆惒羅經 T0116; 佛說戒德香經; 戒徳經 T0143; 玉耶經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 T0148; 國王不梨先泥十夢經 T0494; 阿難七夢經; 阿難八夢經, 七夢經 T0538; 阿調阿那含經, 荷鵰阿那含經; 佛說呵雕阿那鋡經 T0741; 五苦章句經; 諸天五苦經, 五道章句經, 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經, 五苦經 T0742; 佛說自愛經; 自愛不自愛經 T0796; 佛說見正經; Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經, Shengsi bainshi jing 生死變識經, Jianzheng biqiu jing 見正比丘經 [No identifier supplied] |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Hayashiya claims that probably the Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經 and the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations are the same text, since Sengyou did not see the former and the two shared the same alternate title Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經. Hayashiya also claims that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujilan fu jing should be seen as different texts or alternate translations, even though one of the alternate title of the latter, Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing, may well be an alternate title of the Mowang shi Mulian jing, which Sengyou states is roughly the same as the Mo raoluan jing. Usually, when Sengyou says any two texts are “roughly the same”, the two are virtually identical, with minor differences made during the process of transmission. However, in this case, the claim that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujielan fo jing are "roughly the same" is likely to have been taken from previous catalogues (because Sengyou did not see the Mo shi Mulian jing, which title seems to refer to the same text as the Mowang shi Mulian jing), and hence it is no indication of an independent judgement on Sengyou’s part. LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: The Mo raoluan jing, regarded as eight sheets long by Jingtai, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing rediscovered at the time of Zhisheng are extant today as the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 T66, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 T67 respectively. Hayashiya maintains that T66 and T67 are alternate translation of the same text, but clearly not composed by the same translator or in the same period. Hayashiya then shows that it is a challenge to determinate which of T66 and T67 was the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 or the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 as they appear in old catalogues, because they share the main story, and both contain the words rao 嬈 and Bi Mo 弊魔, and neither of them has 魔嬈亂 or 弊魔試目連. However, regarding the title Mowang ru Mijielan fu jing, Hayashiya argues, it probably refers to T66, because it contains a passage that directly corresponds to that title. The vocabulary and tone of T66 and T67 show that both were composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and that T66 is older than T67. In addition, as stated above the content of T66 fits the title Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing better than T67. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T66 was the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, as listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and the most plausible date of composition for the text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hyashiya maintains that, given that T66 is likely to be the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, and that the unseen Bi Mo shi Mulian jing in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures was probably just an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the other surviving text, T67, must be the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. In fact, this title is listed with Mo raoluan jing as an alternate title in KYL and the Taishō. Thus, it is natural to regard T67 as the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. It is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. LDSBJ and KYL’s attribution of T67 (listed as the Mo raoluan jing) to Zhi Qian is incorrect, since LDSBJ shows no solid grounds for the ascription, and the date of composition of T67 is the W. Jin 西晋 period, which is not the time of Zhi Qian. Moreover, even if the text they were referring to was actually T66, the vocabulary and tone of T66 are also clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. Hayashiya concludes that the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations and the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were the only two alternate translations of the Xiang mo jing 降魔經 in the Madhyamāgama (MĀ T26(131)), and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing of Sengyou’s catalogue is an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing. The surviving T66 and T67 should be recorded respectively as the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period and the Mo raoluan jing of the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
1309-1316 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 ["Sutra on How Mara Entered Maudgalyayana's Belly"; cf. Maratajjaniya-sutta, MN 50; Gombrich, How Buddhism Began, 79--MR] is listed in this catalogue, with the alternate titles Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經 and Mowang ru Mulian fu zhong jing 魔王入目連腹中經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also listed the extant Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經, stating that it is roughly the same as the Mowang shi Mulian jing 魔王試目連經, and the unseen Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經, with the alternate title Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Hayashiya claims that probably the Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經 and the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations are the same text, since Sengyou did not see the former and the two shared the same alternate title Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經. Hayashiya also claims that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujilan fu jing should be seen as different texts or alternate translations, even though one of the alternate title of the latter, Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing, may well be an alternate title of the Mowang shi Mulian jing, which Sengyou states is roughly the same as the Mo raoluan jing. Usually, when Sengyou says any two texts are “roughly the same”, the two are virtually identical, with minor differences made during the process of transmission. However, in this case, the claim that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujielan fo jing are "roughly the same" is likely to have been taken from previous catalogues (because Sengyou did not see the Mo shi Mulian jing, which title seems to refer to the same text as the Mowang shi Mulian jing), and hence it is no indication of an independent judgement on Sengyou’s part. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: In contrast to the considerations discussed by Hayashiya above, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu took the view that the Mowan ru Mujielan fu jing, the Mo raoluan jing and the Mo shimo Mulian jing all refer to the same text, and Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as eight sheets 紙. The way that these catalogues listed this group of titles show that there was only one extant text from the Sui 隋 period to the early Tang 唐 period. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ lists the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing (= Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing) as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙 in the Wu 魏呉 period, and the Mo raoluan jing as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: DZKZM followed LDSBJ in listing the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing and the Mo raoluan jing as different texts. It also added the length of the latter as eight sheets, following Jingtai. Hayashiya points out that DZKZM was careless in adding this length without providing good reasons, because while Jingtai regarded the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the Mo raoluan jing and the Mo shi Mulian jing as one and the same text, DZKZM thinks, following LDSBJ, that there are two texts referred to with this group of titles. KYL 開元錄: A text entitled the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing, five sheets long, was rediscovered at the time of Zhisheng 智昇. He listed this text as translated by Zhi Qian, following LDSBJ’s ascription. Moreover, Zhisheng added the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing as an independent text. Thus, KYL gives three separate entries: the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the Mo raoluan jing and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing. Hayashiya criticises KYL, pointing out that, first, it uncritically takes over DZKZM’s careless attribution of the length (eight sheets) to the Mo raoluan jing; second, it regards the newly rediscovered Bi Mo shi Mulian jing as translated by Zhi Qian simply because it said so in the entry with the same title in LDSBJ; and thirdly, it lists the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 as different texts for no good reason, although the two titles are most likely to refer to the same text. The Mo raoluan jing, regarded as eight sheets long by Jingtai, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing rediscovered at the time of Zhisheng are extant today as the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 T66, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 T67 respectively. Hayashiya maintains that T66 and T67 are alternate translation of the same text, but clearly not composed by the same translator or in the same period. Hayashiya then shows that it is a challenge to determinate which of T66 and T67 was the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 or the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 as they appear in old catalogues, because they share the main story, and both contain the words rao 嬈 and Bi Mo 弊魔, and neither of them has 魔嬈亂 or 弊魔試目連. However, regarding the title Mowang ru Mijielan fu jing, Hayashiya argues, it probably refers to T66, because it contains a passage that directly corresponds to that title. The vocabulary and tone of T66 and T67 show that both were composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and that T66 is older than T67. In addition, as stated above the content of T66 fits the title Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing better than T67. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T66 was the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, as listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and the most plausible date of composition for the text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hyashiya maintains that, given that T66 is likely to be the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, and that the unseen Bi Mo shi Mulian jing in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures was probably just an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the other surviving text, T67, must be the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. In fact, this title is listed with Mo raoluan jing as an alternate title in KYL and the Taisho. Thus, it is natural to regard T67 as the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. It is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. LDSBJ and KYL’s attribution of T67 (listed as the Mo raoluan jing) to Zhi Qian is incorrect, since LDSBJ shows no solid grounds for the ascription, and the date of composition of T67 is the W. Jin 西晋 period, which is not the time of Zhi Qian. Moreover, even if the text they were referring to was actually T66, the vocabulary and tone of T66 are also clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. Hayashiya concludes that the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations and the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were the only two alternate translations of the Xiang mo jing 降魔經 in the Madhyamagama (MA T26(131)), and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing of Sengyou’s catalogue is an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing. The surviving T66 and T67 should be recorded respectively as the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period and the Mo raoluan jing of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0066; 魔試目連經; 弊魔試摩目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 魔王試目連經; 魔王入目連腹中經; 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Hayashiya claims that probably the Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經 and the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations are the same text, since Sengyou did not see the former and the two shared the same alternate title Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經. Hayashiya also claims that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujilan fu jing should be seen as different texts or alternate translations, even though one of the alternate title of the latter, Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing, may well be an alternate title of the Mowang shi Mulian jing, which Sengyou states is roughly the same as the Mo raoluan jing. Usually, when Sengyou says any two texts are “roughly the same”, the two are virtually identical, with minor differences made during the process of transmission. However, in this case, the claim that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujielan fo jing are "roughly the same" is likely to have been taken from previous catalogues (because Sengyou did not see the Mo shi Mulian jing, which title seems to refer to the same text as the Mowang shi Mulian jing), and hence it is no indication of an independent judgement on Sengyou’s part. LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: The Mo raoluan jing, regarded as eight sheets long by Jingtai, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing rediscovered at the time of Zhisheng are extant today as the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 T66, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 T67 respectively. Hayashiya maintains that T66 and T67 are alternate translation of the same text, but clearly not composed by the same translator or in the same period. Hayashiya then shows that it is a challenge to determinate which of T66 and T67 was the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 or the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 as they appear in old catalogues, because they share the main story, and both contain the words rao 嬈 and Bi Mo 弊魔, and neither of them has 魔嬈亂 or 弊魔試目連. However, regarding the title Mowang ru Mijielan fu jing, Hayashiya argues, it probably refers to T66, because it contains a passage that directly corresponds to that title. The vocabulary and tone of T66 and T67 show that both were composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and that T66 is older than T67. In addition, as stated above the content of T66 fits the title Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing better than T67. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T66 was the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, as listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and the most plausible date of composition for the text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hyashiya maintains that, given that T66 is likely to be the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, and that the unseen Bi Mo shi Mulian jing in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures was probably just an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the other surviving text, T67, must be the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. In fact, this title is listed with Mo raoluan jing as an alternate title in KYL and the Taishō. Thus, it is natural to regard T67 as the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. It is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. LDSBJ and KYL’s attribution of T67 (listed as the Mo raoluan jing) to Zhi Qian is incorrect, since LDSBJ shows no solid grounds for the ascription, and the date of composition of T67 is the W. Jin 西晋 period, which is not the time of Zhi Qian. Moreover, even if the text they were referring to was actually T66, the vocabulary and tone of T66 are also clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. Hayashiya concludes that the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations and the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were the only two alternate translations of the Xiang mo jing 降魔經 in the Madhyamāgama (MĀ T26(131)), and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing of Sengyou’s catalogue is an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing. The surviving T66 and T67 should be recorded respectively as the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period and the Mo raoluan jing of the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
1309-1316 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 ["Sutra on How Mara Entered Maudgalyayana's Belly"; cf. Maratajjaniya-sutta, MN 50; Gombrich, How Buddhism Began, 79--MR] is listed in this catalogue, with the alternate titles Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經 and Mowang ru Mulian fu zhong jing 魔王入目連腹中經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also listed the extant Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經, stating that it is roughly the same as the Mowang shi Mulian jing 魔王試目連經, and the unseen Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經, with the alternate title Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Hayashiya claims that probably the Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經 and the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations are the same text, since Sengyou did not see the former and the two shared the same alternate title Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經. Hayashiya also claims that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujilan fu jing should be seen as different texts or alternate translations, even though one of the alternate title of the latter, Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing, may well be an alternate title of the Mowang shi Mulian jing, which Sengyou states is roughly the same as the Mo raoluan jing. Usually, when Sengyou says any two texts are “roughly the same”, the two are virtually identical, with minor differences made during the process of transmission. However, in this case, the claim that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujielan fo jing are "roughly the same" is likely to have been taken from previous catalogues (because Sengyou did not see the Mo shi Mulian jing, which title seems to refer to the same text as the Mowang shi Mulian jing), and hence it is no indication of an independent judgement on Sengyou’s part. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: In contrast to the considerations discussed by Hayashiya above, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu took the view that the Mowan ru Mujielan fu jing, the Mo raoluan jing and the Mo shimo Mulian jing all refer to the same text, and Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as eight sheets 紙. The way that these catalogues listed this group of titles show that there was only one extant text from the Sui 隋 period to the early Tang 唐 period. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ lists the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing (= Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing) as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙 in the Wu 魏呉 period, and the Mo raoluan jing as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: DZKZM followed LDSBJ in listing the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing and the Mo raoluan jing as different texts. It also added the length of the latter as eight sheets, following Jingtai. Hayashiya points out that DZKZM was careless in adding this length without providing good reasons, because while Jingtai regarded the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the Mo raoluan jing and the Mo shi Mulian jing as one and the same text, DZKZM thinks, following LDSBJ, that there are two texts referred to with this group of titles. KYL 開元錄: A text entitled the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing, five sheets long, was rediscovered at the time of Zhisheng 智昇. He listed this text as translated by Zhi Qian, following LDSBJ’s ascription. Moreover, Zhisheng added the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing as an independent text. Thus, KYL gives three separate entries: the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the Mo raoluan jing and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing. Hayashiya criticises KYL, pointing out that, first, it uncritically takes over DZKZM’s careless attribution of the length (eight sheets) to the Mo raoluan jing; second, it regards the newly rediscovered Bi Mo shi Mulian jing as translated by Zhi Qian simply because it said so in the entry with the same title in LDSBJ; and thirdly, it lists the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 as different texts for no good reason, although the two titles are most likely to refer to the same text. The Mo raoluan jing, regarded as eight sheets long by Jingtai, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing rediscovered at the time of Zhisheng are extant today as the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 T66, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 T67 respectively. Hayashiya maintains that T66 and T67 are alternate translation of the same text, but clearly not composed by the same translator or in the same period. Hayashiya then shows that it is a challenge to determinate which of T66 and T67 was the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 or the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 as they appear in old catalogues, because they share the main story, and both contain the words rao 嬈 and Bi Mo 弊魔, and neither of them has 魔嬈亂 or 弊魔試目連. However, regarding the title Mowang ru Mijielan fu jing, Hayashiya argues, it probably refers to T66, because it contains a passage that directly corresponds to that title. The vocabulary and tone of T66 and T67 show that both were composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and that T66 is older than T67. In addition, as stated above the content of T66 fits the title Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing better than T67. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T66 was the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, as listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and the most plausible date of composition for the text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hyashiya maintains that, given that T66 is likely to be the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, and that the unseen Bi Mo shi Mulian jing in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures was probably just an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the other surviving text, T67, must be the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. In fact, this title is listed with Mo raoluan jing as an alternate title in KYL and the Taisho. Thus, it is natural to regard T67 as the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. It is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. LDSBJ and KYL’s attribution of T67 (listed as the Mo raoluan jing) to Zhi Qian is incorrect, since LDSBJ shows no solid grounds for the ascription, and the date of composition of T67 is the W. Jin 西晋 period, which is not the time of Zhi Qian. Moreover, even if the text they were referring to was actually T66, the vocabulary and tone of T66 are also clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. Hayashiya concludes that the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations and the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were the only two alternate translations of the Xiang mo jing 降魔經 in the Madhyamagama (MA T26(131)), and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing of Sengyou’s catalogue is an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing. The surviving T66 and T67 should be recorded respectively as the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period and the Mo raoluan jing of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0067; Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 弊魔試目連經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: LDSBJ 三寶, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: There is a Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 in the Taishō (T71), ascribed to Tanwulan. Its length is slightly more than six registers 段, roughly the same the length as the seven or eight sheets shown in Jingtai and some other catalogues. Hence, we are justified in regarding T71 as the Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing that was considered extant in catalogues since the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya asserts that the Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志頗波羅延問尊種經 is not Tanwulan's translation, because the vocabulary and tone of T71 is that of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, and it was listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. He concludes that this text is as an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or thereabouts. |
1321-1323 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志頗波羅延問尊種經 is listed in this catalogue and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this text (with the title Fanzhi Poluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志頗羅延問種尊經) in the category of alternate translations from the Dirghagama. Yancong and Jingtai did the same, while Jingtai showed the length of the text as seven sheets 紙. The text was certainly extant from the time of Sengyou to the Tang 唐 period, and considered an anonymous scripture by all the reliable catalogues. LDSBJ 三寶, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: LDSBJ classified this text (with the title Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing) as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 of the 東晋 period, without giving a substantial reason. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄 (with the title Fanzhi Aluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志阿羅延問種尊經 and Fanzhi Poluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志頞羅延問種尊經, respectively) followed LDSBJ in this regard. KYL shows the length of the text as seven sheets. There is a Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 in the Taisho (T71), ascribed to Tanwulan. Its length is slightly more than six registers 段, roughly the same the length as the seven or eight sheets shown in Jingtai and some other catalogues. Hence, we are justified in regarding T71 as the Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing that was considered extant in catalogues since the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya asserts that the Fanzhi Poboluoyan wen zunzhong jing 梵志頗波羅延問尊種經 is not Tanwulan's translation, because the vocabulary and tone of T71 is that of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, and it was listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. He concludes that this text is as an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or thereabouts. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0071; 梵志頗波羅延問尊種經; 梵志頗羅延問種尊經; 梵志阿羅延問種尊經; 梵志頞羅延問種尊經; 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 |
|
A Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. According to Hayashiya, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 also lists an alternative translation of this Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經, namely, the Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經 translated by *Guṇavṛddhi 求那毘地. However, Hayashiya points out that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists *Guṇavṛddhi's version only, as the Xuda jing 須達經. In that catalogue, Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 appears merely as an alternate tile of *Guṇavṛddhi's Xuda jing 須達經, with another alternate title, San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu offers a similar description. KYL 開元錄 also shows San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 as an alternate translation of the Xuda jing 須達經/Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經. However, this San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 is extant, as an anonymous scripture, T72. This text does not contain the word Xuda 須達 at all. Hence, it is a different version of the text from the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 of Dao'an's list, and must have had its present title from the very beginning. Given this is a separate text, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is incorrect in treating it as an alternate title of 須達經. Two more alternate translations have survived in the present canon (??現藏): the Xuda jing 須達經, shown as translated by *Guṇavṛddhi 求那毘地 T73; and the Zhangzhe Shibao jing 長者施報經 T74 translated by Fatian 法天 (*Dharmadeva) under the Song 宋. The latter is too recent to be considered in Hayashiya's discussion. Hayashiya points out that the extant Xuda jing 須達經 must have been translated earlier than the E. Jin 東晋 period, because its style is clearly older than that of the Xudaduo jing 須達哆經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26(155), which was translated by Saṃghadeva 僧伽提婆 under the E. Jin 東晋. It therefore cannot have been produced in the Qi 齊 period, when *Guṇavṛddhi was active. The title of the text also shows it cannot be the text translated by *Guṇavṛddhi. *Guṇavṛddhi’s translation was produced in 495 CE. By that time, it had become customary to determine the title of the text when the translation was completed. Therefore, Hayashiya argues, given that *Guṇavṛddhi's biography reports that the Xuda jing was also called the Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經, if the Xuda jing 須達經 was really translated by *Guṇavṛddhi, the name Xuda zhangzhe 須達長者 should appear in the text itself. However, this name does not appear in the text, although a similar name, Xuda jushi 須達居士, appears in places. Hence, it is clear that *Guṇavṛddhi cannot be the translator of the exant Xuda jing 須達經 included in the Taishō. On the other hand, the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經in Dao'an's list should have been originally called the Xuda jing 須達經, since Dao'an tended to show the titles of texts in his list of anonymous scriptures with just two characters each. Sengyou 僧祐 also mentions that the Zhangzhe Xudai jing 長者須達經 was also called simply the Xuda jing 須達經. Thus, the Xuda jing 須達經 in the Taishō, which is ascribed to *Guṇavṛddhi, must actually be the text of the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 given in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, the Xudai jing 須達經 in Dao'an's list, the San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 T72, and the Zhangzhe Shebao jing 長者施報經 T74 translated by Fatian 法天 are the only surviving translations of the Xuda jing 須達經. The Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經 translated by *Guṇavṛddhi must have been lost at an early stage, since Fajing already misunderstood the title in Dao'an's list and the *Guṇavṛddhi to be the same. Nonetheless, it is clear that *Guṇavṛddhi's version existed at the time of Sengyou, as he recorded it separately from the one in Dao'an's list and also mentioned it in his biography of *Guṇavṛddhi. Thus, the Xuda jing 須達經 in Dao'an's list is not lost, and should be recorded as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. It is *Guṇavṛddhi's translation that has been lost. |
647-651 |
A Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. According to Hayashiya, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 also lists an alternative translation of this Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經, namely, the Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經 translated by *Gunavrddhi 求那毘地. However, Hayashiya points out that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists *Gunavrddhi's version only, as the Xuda jing 須達經. In that catalogue, Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 appears merely as an alternate tile of *Gunavrddhi's Xuda jing 須達經, with another alternate title, San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu offers a similar description. KYL 開元錄 also shows San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 as an alternate translation of the Xuda jing 須達經/Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經. However, this San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 is extant, as an anonymous scripture, T72. This text does not contain the word Xuda 須達 at all. Hence, it is a different version of the text from the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 of Dao'an's list, and must have had its present title from the very beginning. Given this is a separate text, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is incorrect in treating it as an alternate title of 須達經. Two more alternate translations have survived in the present canon (??現藏): the Xuda jing 須達經, shown as translated by *Gunavrddhi 求那毘地 T73; and the Zhangzhe Shibao jing 長者施報經 T74 translated by Fatian 法天 (*Dharmadeva) under the Song 宋. The latter is too recent to be considered in Hayashiya's discussion. Hayashiya points out that the extant Xuda jing 須達經 must have been translated earlier than the E. Jin 東晋 period, because its style is clearly older than that of the Xudaduo jing 須達哆經 in the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26(155), which was translated by Samghadeva 僧伽提婆 under the E. Jin 東晋. It therefore cannot have been produced in the Qi 齊 period, when *Gunavrddhi was active. The title of the text also shows it cannot be the text translated by *Gunavrddhi. *Gunavrddhi’s translation was produced in 495 CE. By that time, it had become customary to determine the title of the text when the translation was completed. Therefore, Hayashiya argues, given that *Gunavrddhi's biography reports that the Xuda jing was also called the Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經, if the Xuda jing 須達經 was really translated by *Gunavrddhi, the name Xuda zhangzhe 須達長者 should appear in the text itself. However, this name does not appear in the text, although a similar name, Xuda jushi 須達居士, appears in places. Hence, it is clear that *Gunavrddhi cannot be the translator of the exant Xuda jing 須達經 included in the Taisho. On the other hand, the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經in Dao'an's list should have been originally called the Xuda jing 須達經, since Dao'an tended to show the titles of texts in his list of anonymous scriptures with just two characters each. Sengyou 僧祐 also mentions that the Zhangzhe Xudai jing 長者須達經 was also called simply the Xuda jing 須達經. Thus, the Xuda jing 須達經 in the Taisho, which is ascribed to *Gunavrddhi, must actually be the text of the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 given in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, the Xudai jing 須達經 in Dao'an's list, the San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 T72, and the Zhangzhe Shebao jing 長者施報經 T74 translated by Fatian 法天 are the only surviving translations of the Xuda jing 須達經. The Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經 translated by *Gunavrddhi must have been lost at an early stage, since Fajing already misunderstood the title in Dao'an's list and the *Gunavrddhi to be the same. Nonetheless, it is clear that *Gunavrddhi's version existed at the time of Sengyou, as he recorded it separately from the one in Dao'an's list and also mentioned it in his biography of *Gunavrddhi. Thus, the Xuda jing 須達經 in Dao'an's list is not lost, and should be recorded as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. It is *Gunavrddhi's translation that has been lost. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0073; 須達經; Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 |
|
This Doutiao jing 兜調經 is an alternate translation 異譯經 of the Yingwu jing 鸚鵡經 T79, so Fajing 法經録, the Renshou lu 仁壽録 and KYL 開元録 are incorrect in assuming that it is identical to T79 鸚鵡經. Hayashiya also claims that 兜調經 was translated in the W. Jin 西晋 era, just as KYL 開元録 says. |
485-488 |
This Doutiao jing 兜調經 is an alternate translation 異譯經 of the Yingwu jing 鸚鵡經 T79, so Fajing 法經録, the Renshou lu 仁壽録 and KYL 開元録 are incorrect in assuming that it is identical to T79 鸚鵡經. Hayashiya also claims that 兜調經 was translated in the W. Jin 西晋 era, just as KYL 開元録 says. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0078; 兜調經 |
|
Hayashiya rejects the ascription of this text to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in LDSBJ (Fei Changfang). He asserts that the vocabulary used is clearly of the W. Jin 西晋 era and cannot be Guṇabhadra's. The Doutiao jing 兜調經 T78 is an alternate translation 異譯經 of the present text 鸚鵡經 T79, and so Fajing 法經録, the Renshou lu 仁壽録 and KYL 開元録 are incorrect in assuming that it is identical with the present text. |
485-488 |
Hayashiya rejects the ascription of this text to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in LDSBJ (Fei Changfang). He asserts that the vocabulary used is clearly of the W. Jin 西晋 era and cannot be Gunabhadra's. The Doutiao jing 兜調經 T78 is an alternate translation 異譯經 of the present text 鸚鵡經 T79, and so Fajing 法經録, the Renshou lu 仁壽録 and KYL 開元録 are incorrect in assuming that it is identical with the present text. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0079; 鸚鵡經; Doutiao jing 兜調經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Fanren you san shi yuchi buzu jing 凡人有三事愚癡不足經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄, but was lost by the time of Sengyou. However, Hayashiya maintains that this text is actually the first half of the Qinku Nili jing 勤苦泥犁經 or Nili jing 泥犁經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. The text that those titles refer to was extant at the time of Sengyou, and still is today as the Nili jing 泥犁經 T86. CSZJJ 出三藏記集 and a number of catalouges after that, excluding LDSBJ 三寶記, listed either or both of the Qinku Nili jing and the Nili jing, while listing the Fanren you san shi yuchi buzu jing separately. Hayashiya points out that it is a mistake of redundant listing, and asserts that the title Fanren you san shi yuchi buzu jing should be changed to the Qinku Nili jing, classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. He refers to his own article about the Fo jie zhu biqiu yan wo yi tianyan shi tianxia ren shengsi haochou zunzhe bizhe jing 佛誡諸比丘言我以天眼視天下人生死好醜尊者卑者經 in the current work, 1214-1230, for further details of the relations among the texts and titles in this group. |
1271 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Fanren you san shi yuchi buzu jing 凡人有三事愚癡不足經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄, but was lost by the time of Sengyou. However, Hayashiya maintains that this text is actually the first half of the Qinku Nili jing 勤苦泥犁經 or Nili jing 泥犁經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. The text that those titles refer to was extant at the time of Sengyou, and still is today as the Nili jing 泥犁經 T86. CSZJJ 出三藏記集 and a number of catalouges after that, excluding LDSBJ 三寶記, listed either or both of the Qinku Nili jing and the Nili jing, while listing the Fanren you san shi yuchi buzu jing separately. Hayashiya points out that it is a mistake of redundant listing, and asserts that the title Fanren you san shi yuchi buzu jing should be changed to the Qinku Nili jing, classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. He refers to his own article about the Fo jie zhu biqiu yan wo yi tianyan shi tianxia ren shengsi haochou zunzhe bizhe jing 佛誡諸比丘言我以天眼視天下人生死好醜尊者卑者經 in the current work, 1214-1230, for further details of the relations among the texts and titles in this group. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0086; 泥犁經; 凡人有三事愚癡不足經; Zhong ahan nili jing 中阿含泥犁經; 勤苦泥犁經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 lists a Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. He also lists another Ba guan zhai jing in the category of extant scriptures in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 with a note saying “alternate issue” 異出. Hayashiya points out that there were thus two different Ba guan zhai jing at the time of Sengyou, since both were extant and Sengyou states that one of them is 異出. However, Fajing does not take the view that there are two Ba guan zhai jing, but regards “Ba guan zhai jing” as one of the two alternate titles of the Zhai jing 齋經 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, a text which is listed in his “catalogue of the Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka” 小乗修多羅藏錄. (The other alternate title of the Zhai jing shown by Fajing is Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優婆夷堕舎迦經.) Hayashiya points out that the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian is included in Dao’an’s catalogue, but was lost at the time of Sengyou. Hence, even if the Zhai jing and the Ba guan zhai jing were the same text, Sengyou would not have known it. The same can be said about the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, Hayashiya adds, because Sengyou includes the title in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 as an unseen scripture 未見經, so its alleged identity with the Zhai jing could not have been known to Sengyou. Nonetheless, Hayashiya asserts that Fajing’s treatment of the Ba guan zhai jing, viz., regarding the title merely as an alternate title of the Zhai jing, is unjustified, since there are two different Ba guan zhai jing in Sengyou. Hayashiya then examines three texts in the Taishō: the Zhai jing 齋經 T87 ascribed to Zhi Qian, the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優陂夷墮舍迦經 T88, shown as an anonymous scripture of the Song 宋 period, and the Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 T89 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. The contents of all these three texts are about the ba guan zhai 八關齋 (eight precepts for poṣadha days), so it would make sense to call any of them Zhai jing, Ba guan zhai jing, or Zhai fa jing 齋法經. In addition, T88 contains the name of woman called Duoshejia 墮舍迦, so among the three texts it is the most suitable one to be called Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優陂夷墮舍迦經. According to Hayashiya, the style of T87, T88, and T89 are that of the W. Jin 西晋 or of the Three Kingdoms 三國 period, so none of these texts should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Song period, or as a work of Zhi Qian. Given the period in which they were produced, two of the three texts in the Taishō should be the Zhai jing and Ba guan zhai jing listed by Dao’an. Hayashiya infers that Sengyou found the third one and included it as the second Ba guan zhai jing with the comment 異出, adding that Sengyou probably did not know that one of the three texts could also be called Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, and therefore listed the title separately as unseen. Hayashiya states that Fajing’s mistake in regarding the three titles as referring to one and the same text is understandable, because Fajing's is a catalogue compiled through discussions between scholars without directly consulting texts, and all three extant alternate translations could well be called Ba guan zhai jing.Furthermore, T88 and T87 explain the same subject matter: that the benefit of keeping the poṣadha precepts 齋 is greater than that of all the wise people in the sixteen great states 十六大國. Nonetheless, Hayashiya affirms that it is clear from Sengyou’s record that there were two Ba guan zhai jing. Yancong and Jingtai recorded the text in the same fashion as Fajing, viz., listing only the Zhai jing 齋經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, while treating the Ba guan zhai jing and the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing as its alternate titles. Jingtai shows the length of the text as four sheets. Based on this length, Hayashiya claims that the entry in Jingtai should be for T87, which has a length of approximately three and a half registers (T88 is shorter than three registers, T89 is shorter than one and a half registers). LDSBJ lists the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian (with an alternate title Chi zhai jing 持齋經) and the Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 ascribed to Jingsheng, but does not mention the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing. Hayashiya points out that although the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in LDSBJ may appear to be taken from the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures by Sengyou, because the comment 異出 is appended to it, this is not likely, because 異出 in LDSBJ would be meaningless given that the first Ba guan zhai jing is omitted. Hayashiya then considers two possibilities regarding the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in LDSBJ: The entry was taken from Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures with the comment 異出 added by mistake, or Fei Changfang 費長房 was influenced by Fajing in supposing the existence of only one Ba guan zhai jing and accordingly mixed up the two Ba guan zhai jing in Sengyou/ Dao'an. Hayashiya conjectures that the first possibility is more plausible, since among titles ascribed to Jingsheng in LDSBJ, as many as twenty are taken from Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, so it is reasonable to assume that this Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng is also taken from that catalogue. In any case, since LDSBJ is not based on the contents of texts, it is not possible to know, from what is written in the catalogue alone, which title refers to the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian or to the Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 also includes the two titles Zhai jing , ascribed to Zhi Qian, and Ba guan zhai jing, ascribed to Jingsheng. It shows the length of the former (four sheets), but not that of the latter. Hayashiya claims that there is no record of length for the Ba guan zhai jing because the text was not extant at that time. (DZKZM also shows Ba fa shan su jing 八法善宿經 as an alternate title of the Ba guan zhai jing, allegedly on the basis of Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄, but Hayashiya states that this part of the record may be unreliable because it is not seen in any other catalogues.) Since both Jingtai and DZKZM show the length of the Zhai jing as four sheets, the text should be slightly shorter than three and a half registers in the format of the Taishō, and this makes it certain that T87 is the text recorded in those catalogues. Unlike the other catalogues after CSZJJ, KYL lists three titles: the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, as an anonymous extant Hīnayāna text shown by Sengyou; the Zhai jing as an extant Hīnayāna text ascribed to Zhi Qian (KYL states that these two texts are alternate translations); and the Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng, as an extant single Hīnayāna text. Hayashiya points out that it is KYL that first lists as extant both the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing and the Ba guan zhai jing, a text which was considered lost for a long time. Hayashiya also argues that most of the descriptions and ascriptions KYL gives for these titles do not have to be taken seriously. For example, KYL’s comment that the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing was produced in the Song period is made tentatively based on the simple fact that the title was included in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. Such suppositions about dating are made by KYL in re-listing 307 titles in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures that are omitted in LDSBJ, including the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing. Thus, the Song dating of the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing can be easily be rejected if the style of the text is found to be that of the W. Jin 西晋 or earlier. In addition, the ascription of the Ba guan zhai jing to Jingsheng does not have any convincing grounds, for the following reason: While the three titles were given to one text in the previous catalogues, the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing and another text (which can be entitled Ba guan zhai jing) were discovered by the time of Jingsheng. As the Zhai jing was considered extant throughout, and the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing was easily identifiable from its title, the title Ba guan zhai jing was given to the second of the two rediscovered texts, with the addition of the ascription given by LDSBJ. Hence, again, the ascription to Jingsheng can be rejected unproblematically if the style of the text is found to be that of W. Jin or earlier. Hayashiya points out that it is difficult to determine which of T88 and T89 is the Ba guan zhai jing listed in Dao'an. All we know is that, at the time of Sengyou, both the Ba guan zhai jing in Dao'an and the Ba guan zhai jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were extant, the latter being an alternate issue 異出 of the former, while neither the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian nor the Youboyi Duoshejia jing 優婆夷堕舎迦經 was extant. Given this, either the alternate issue of the Ba guan zhai jing could be the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian, or the Youboyi Duoshejia jing could actually refer to the same text as one of the three other titles. However, Hayashiya asserts that at least it is clear that the three text in the Taishō have the style of the the Three Kingdoms 三國代 or of the W. Jin the latest. Hence, the ascription of T89 to Jingsheng and the classification of T88 as a scripture of the Song period cannot be correct. He also points out that the existence of the three old texts strongly suggests that the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures is not a repeat entry of the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian, as Fajing might have thought, Hayashiya concludes that it is certain that the Ba guan zhai jing of Dao'an is either T88 or T89, although exactly which one unknown. As their style of is that of the W. Jin or earlier, T88 and T89 should be reclassified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin period or earlier, correcting the ascription and classification given by the Taishō. |
714-722 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 lists a Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. He also lists another Ba guan zhai jing in the category of extant scriptures in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 with a note saying “alternate issue” 異出. Hayashiya points out that there were thus two different Ba guan zhai jing at the time of Sengyou, since both were extant and Sengyou states that one of them is 異出. However, Fajing does not take the view that there are two Ba guan zhai jing, but regards “Ba guan zhai jing” as one of the two alternate titles of the Zhai jing 齋經 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, a text which is listed in his “catalogue of the Hinayana sutrapitaka” 小乗修多羅藏錄. (The other alternate title of the Zhai jing shown by Fajing is Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優婆夷堕舎迦經.) Hayashiya points out that the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian is included in Dao’an’s catalogue, but was lost at the time of Sengyou. Hence, even if the Zhai jing and the Ba guan zhai jing were the same text, Sengyou would not have known it. The same can be said about the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, Hayashiya adds, because Sengyou includes the title in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 as an unseen scripture 未見經, so its alleged identity with the Zhai jing could not have been known to Sengyou. Nonetheless, Hayashiya asserts that Fajing’s treatment of the Ba guan zhai jing, viz., regarding the title merely as an alternate title of the Zhai jing, is unjustified, since there are two different Ba guan zhai jing in Sengyou. Hayashiya then examines three texts in the Taisho: the Zhai jing 齋經 T87 ascribed to Zhi Qian, the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優陂夷墮舍迦經 T88, shown as an anonymous scripture of the Song 宋 period, and the Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 T89 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. The contents of all these three texts are about the ba guan zhai 八關齋 (eight precepts for posadha days), so it would make sense to call any of them Zhai jing, Ba guan zhai jing, or Zhai fa jing 齋法經. In addition, T88 contains the name of woman called Duoshejia 墮舍迦, so among the three texts it is the most suitable one to be called Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優陂夷墮舍迦經. According to Hayashiya, the style of T87, T88, and T89 are that of the W. Jin 西晋 or of the Three Kingdoms 三國 period, so none of these texts should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Song period, or as a work of Zhi Qian. Given the period in which they were produced, two of the three texts in the Taisho should be the Zhai jing and Ba guan zhai jing listed by Dao’an. Hayashiya infers that Sengyou found the third one and included it as the second Ba guan zhai jing with the comment 異出, adding that Sengyou probably did not know that one of the three texts could also be called Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, and therefore listed the title separately as unseen. Hayashiya states that Fajing’s mistake in regarding the three titles as referring to one and the same text is understandable, because Fajing's is a catalogue compiled through discussions between scholars without directly consulting texts, and all three extant alternate translations could well be called Ba guan zhai jing.Furthermore, T88 and T87 explain the same subject matter: that the benefit of keeping the posadha precepts 齋 is greater than that of all the wise people in the sixteen great states 十六大國. Nonetheless, Hayashiya affirms that it is clear from Sengyou’s record that there were two Ba guan zhai jing. Yancong and Jingtai recorded the text in the same fashion as Fajing, viz., listing only the Zhai jing 齋經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, while treating the Ba guan zhai jing and the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing as its alternate titles. Jingtai shows the length of the text as four sheets. Based on this length, Hayashiya claims that the entry in Jingtai should be for T87, which has a length of approximately three and a half registers (T88 is shorter than three registers, T89 is shorter than one and a half registers). LDSBJ lists the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian (with an alternate title Chi zhai jing 持齋經) and the Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 ascribed to Jingsheng, but does not mention the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing. Hayashiya points out that although the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in LDSBJ may appear to be taken from the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures by Sengyou, because the comment 異出 is appended to it, this is not likely, because 異出 in LDSBJ would be meaningless given that the first Ba guan zhai jing is omitted. Hayashiya then considers two possibilities regarding the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in LDSBJ: The entry was taken from Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures with the comment 異出 added by mistake, or Fei Changfang 費長房 was influenced by Fajing in supposing the existence of only one Ba guan zhai jing and accordingly mixed up the two Ba guan zhai jing in Sengyou/ Dao'an. Hayashiya conjectures that the first possibility is more plausible, since among titles ascribed to Jingsheng in LDSBJ, as many as twenty are taken from Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, so it is reasonable to assume that this Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng is also taken from that catalogue. In any case, since LDSBJ is not based on the contents of texts, it is not possible to know, from what is written in the catalogue alone, which title refers to the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian or to the Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 also includes the two titles Zhai jing , ascribed to Zhi Qian, and Ba guan zhai jing, ascribed to Jingsheng. It shows the length of the former (four sheets), but not that of the latter. Hayashiya claims that there is no record of length for the Ba guan zhai jing because the text was not extant at that time. (DZKZM also shows Ba fa shan su jing 八法善宿經 as an alternate title of the Ba guan zhai jing, allegedly on the basis of Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄, but Hayashiya states that this part of the record may be unreliable because it is not seen in any other catalogues.) Since both Jingtai and DZKZM show the length of the Zhai jing as four sheets, the text should be slightly shorter than three and a half registers in the format of the Taisho, and this makes it certain that T87 is the text recorded in those catalogues. Unlike the other catalogues after CSZJJ, KYL lists three titles: the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, as an anonymous extant Hinayana text shown by Sengyou; the Zhai jing as an extant Hinayana text ascribed to Zhi Qian (KYL states that these two texts are alternate translations); and the Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng, as an extant single Hinayana text. Hayashiya points out that it is KYL that first lists as extant both the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing and the Ba guan zhai jing, a text which was considered lost for a long time. Hayashiya also argues that most of the descriptions and ascriptions KYL gives for these titles do not have to be taken seriously. For example, KYL’s comment that the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing was produced in the Song period is made tentatively based on the simple fact that the title was included in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. Such suppositions about dating are made by KYL in re-listing 307 titles in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures that are omitted in LDSBJ, including the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing. Thus, the Song dating of the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing can be easily be rejected if the style of the text is found to be that of the W. Jin 西晋 or earlier. In addition, the ascription of the Ba guan zhai jing to Jingsheng does not have any convincing grounds, for the following reason: While the three titles were given to one text in the previous catalogues, the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing and another text (which can be entitled Ba guan zhai jing) were discovered by the time of Jingsheng. As the Zhai jing was considered extant throughout, and the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing was easily identifiable from its title, the title Ba guan zhai jing was given to the second of the two rediscovered texts, with the addition of the ascription given by LDSBJ. Hence, again, the ascription to Jingsheng can be rejected unproblematically if the style of the text is found to be that of W. Jin or earlier. Hayashiya points out that it is difficult to determine which of T88 and T89 is the Ba guan zhai jing listed in Dao'an. All we know is that, at the time of Sengyou, both the Ba guan zhai jing in Dao'an and the Ba guan zhai jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were extant, the latter being an alternate issue 異出 of the former, while neither the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian nor the Youboyi Duoshejia jing 優婆夷堕舎迦經 was extant. Given this, either the alternate issue of the Ba guan zhai jing could be the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian, or the Youboyi Duoshejia jing could actually refer to the same text as one of the three other titles. However, Hayashiya asserts that at least it is clear that the three text in the Taisho have the style of the the Three Kingdoms 三國代 or of the W. Jin the latest. Hence, the ascription of T89 to Jingsheng and the classification of T88 as a scripture of the Song period cannot be correct. He also points out that the existence of the three old texts strongly suggests that the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures is not a repeat entry of the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian, as Fajing might have thought, Hayashiya concludes that it is certain that the Ba guan zhai jing of Dao'an is either T88 or T89, although exactly which one unknown. As their style of is that of the W. Jin or earlier, T88 and T89 should be reclassified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin period or earlier, correcting the ascription and classification given by the Taisho. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0087; 齋經 T0088; 優陂夷墮舍迦經 T0089; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 八關齋經 |
|
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. He deals with sixteen out of twenty-one such ascriptions, since the other five are discussed elsewhere (and established as incorrect). The sixteen titles are as follows (as shown in Dao'an's list, with the title in LDSBJ in brackets when it differs from Dao’an). Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 (The other five titles that LDSBJ ascribe to Jingsheng are: Pusa Shi jing 菩薩誓經, Shengsi bianshi jing 生死変識經, Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經, Fanmo huang jing 梵摩皇經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經.) Hayashiya maintains that, unless Fei Changfang 費長房 had reliable sources, it is difficult to believe that he found as many as twenty-one texts to be the works of Jingsheng without directly examining their contents, when Dao’an could not give specific ascriptions for the same texts. However, Fei’s source, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of the [Liu] Song canon” 宋時衆經別錄, which he briefly mentions at the end of the list of texts ascribed to Jingsheng, is unlikely to have given such ascriptions, for the following reasons: 1) if it had, those ascriptions should have been reflected in CSZJJ; and 2) since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources of Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed as many as twenty-one texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing. Hayashiya adds that the unreliability of Fei’s ascriptions to Jingsheng is also shown in the fact that he sometimes even cites the same “separate catalogue” as the source of different ascriptions of the same text, e.g., of the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 to Jingsheng and to Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that any texts included in Dao’an’s catalogue should not be works of Jingsheng, who was active under the Song 宋. He also rejects the possibility that the titles in LDSBJ refer to texts different from those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, on the grounds that no catalogues preceding LDSBJ even suggested the existence of such texts. Next, Hayashiya discusses the language and style of those scriptures. He lists eleven extant texts out of the sixteen titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, and compares them with the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經, which has been established as the work of Jingsheng since CSZJJ. Hayashiya points out that, while the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing starts with 如是我聞 and uses vocabulary and terminology newer than that of the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, all of the eleven texts dubiously ascribed to Jingsheng start with 聞如是 and use vocabulary much older than that of the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing. Moreover, there are considerable discrepancies between the styles of these texts. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the eleven texts in question are not the works of Jingsheng. They should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Jingsheng as follows: 1. Jingsheng’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; Hayashiya adds that reliable ascriptions and dates of scriptures should be found by studying catalogues that were compiled honestly, not by believing what LDSBJ states. |
707-714 |
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. He deals with sixteen out of twenty-one such ascriptions, since the other five are discussed elsewhere (and established as incorrect). The sixteen titles are as follows (as shown in Dao'an's list, with the title in LDSBJ in brackets when it differs from Dao’an). Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 Pu ming wang jing 普明王經 Yeqi jing 耶祇經 Moluo wang jing 末羅王經 Fenhezhan wang jing 分惒檀王經 Wubai fanzhi jing 五百梵志經 Seng da jing 僧大經 with an alternate title Fo da seng da jing 佛大僧大經 (佛大僧大經) Da/xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 (Jian wang jing 諫王經) Boyeni wang jing 波耶匿王經 with alternate titles Bosini wang jing 波斯匿王經 and Bosini wang sang mu jiing 波斯匿王喪母經 (波斯匿王喪母經) Moyi biqiu jing 摩夷比丘經 with an alternate title Moyi jing 摩夷經 Zhantuoyue guowang jing 旃陀越國王經 ( Zhantuoyue jing 旃陀越經) Jiashe jie jing 迦葉戒經 with an alternate title Jiashe jin jie jing 迦葉禁戒經 (迦葉禁戒經) Moda wang jing 摩逹王經 (Moda jing 摩逹經) Wu kongbu shi jing 五恐怖世經 Jinxue jing 進學經 with an alternate title Quan jin xue dao jing 觀進學道經 Wu wufanfu jing 五無反復經 (Wu fanfu dayi jing 五反覆大義經). (The other five titles that LDSBJ ascribe to Jingsheng are: Pusa Shi jing 菩薩誓經, Shengsi bianshi jing 生死変識經, Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經, Fanmo huang jing 梵摩皇經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經.) Hayashiya maintains that, unless Fei Changfang 費長房 had reliable sources, it is difficult to believe that he found as many as twenty-one texts to be the works of Jingsheng without directly examining their contents, when Dao’an could not give specific ascriptions for the same texts. However, Fei’s source, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of the [Liu] Song canon” 宋時衆經別錄, which he briefly mentions at the end of the list of texts ascribed to Jingsheng, is unlikely to have given such ascriptions, for the following reasons: 1) if it had, those ascriptions should have been reflected in CSZJJ; and 2) since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources of Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed as many as twenty-one texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing. Hayashiya adds that the unreliability of Fei’s ascriptions to Jingsheng is also shown in the fact that he sometimes even cites the same “separate catalogue” as the source of different ascriptions of the same text, e.g., of the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 to Jingsheng and to Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that any texts included in Dao’an’s catalogue should not be works of Jingsheng, who was active under the Song 宋. He also rejects the possibility that the titles in LDSBJ refer to texts different from those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, on the grounds that no catalogues preceding LDSBJ even suggested the existence of such texts. Next, Hayashiya discusses the language and style of those scriptures. He lists eleven extant texts out of the sixteen titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, and compares them with the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經, which has been established as the work of Jingsheng since CSZJJ. Hayashiya points out that, while the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing starts with 如是我聞 and uses vocabulary and terminology newer than that of the time of Kumarajiva 羅什, all of the eleven texts dubiously ascribed to Jingsheng start with 聞如是 and use vocabulary much older than that of the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing. Moreover, there are considerable discrepancies between the styles of these texts. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the eleven texts in question are not the works of Jingsheng. They should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Jingsheng as follows: 1. Jingsheng’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; 2. The “separate catalogue” mentioned by Fei Changfang as his source could not have contained the information that he says it does; 3. The language and style of all eleven extant texts is too old to be regarded as Jingsheng’s. 3. The other five texts ascribed to Jingsheng that are discussed in different sections of Hayashiya’s work are also demonstrated to be incorrectly ascribed. Hayashiya adds that reliable ascriptions and dates of scriptures should be found by studying catalogues that were compiled honestly, not by believing what LDSBJ states. T0089; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 八關齋經 T0122; 佛說波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; 波耶匿王經, 波斯匿王經, 波斯匿王喪母經, 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0129; 佛說三摩竭經; 難國王經; Xumoti nu jing 須摩提女經; Nan guowang jing 難國王經; Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經; 忿惒檀王經; Mojie wang jing 摩竭王經; Mojie guowang jing 摩竭國王經 T0514; 佛說諫王經; 大小諫王經 T0517; 末羅王經; 佛說末羅王經 T0518; 佛說旃陀越國王經 T0519; Moda wang jing 摩達王經; 佛說摩達國王經 T0541; 佛說佛大僧大經; Seng da jing 僧大經 T0542; 佛說耶祇經; Yeqi jing 耶祇經 T0751; 佛說五無反復經; Wu wufanfu jing 五無返復經, Wuyou fanfu jing 五有返復經 T0752; 佛說五無返復經 T0798; 佛說進學經; Quanjin xue dao jing 勸進學道經 T1469; 佛說迦葉禁戒經; 眞僞沙門經, 摩訶比丘經, 眞僞經, ; 迦葉戒經; Jiashe jie jing 迦葉戒經 T1481; 佛說五恐怖世經; 五恐怖經 |
|
A Zhi yi jing 治意經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. The text is extant as the Zhi yi jing 治意經 T96. Hayashiya maintains that this text is likely to have been produced in or around the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period because it appears to have been written by the same author as the Fo zhi shen jing 佛治身經 T795, and Hayashiya claims that the latter text was produced in or around the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period on the basis of its style. |
543-544 |
A Zhi yi jing 治意經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. The text is extant as the Zhi yi jing 治意經 T96. Hayashiya maintains that this text is likely to have been produced in or around the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period because it appears to have been written by the same author as the Fo zhi shen jing 佛治身經 T795, and Hayashiya claims that the latter text was produced in or around the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period on the basis of its style. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0096; 治意經 |
|
A Za ahan sanshi zhang 雜阿含三十章 ("Thirty Chapters from the Saṃyuktāgama") is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄, but was regarded as lost at the time of Sengyou. The Za ahan sanshi zhang consisted of thirty texts. Hayashiya maintains that the Dan juan za ahan 単巻雑阿含 in the Taishō (T101) consists of twenty seven of those thirty texts. Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations somehow lists twenty five texts out of those thirty as independent titles, separately from the Za ahan sanshi zhang. The three texts that were included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang but not in T101 are the Jiu heng jing 九横經 T150B, the Ba zheng dao 八正道 T112 and the Shudusheng piluomen jing 署杜乘披羅門經. Among the thirty titles, only the Shudusheng piluomen jing is now lost. Hayashiya refers to section 2, chapter 5 of Part III of the current work for a detailed discussion on the twenty five titles listed in the Dao'an's catalogue which are actually part of T101. Hayashiya compares the vocabulary and tone of the 29 texts that are included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang (and in T101 as well, except for two of them). He concludes that all of them are translated by the same person, and since T150B and T112 are considered An Shigao's 安世高 translation, the entire group of T101/Za ahan sanshi zhang should be by An Shigao as well. Dao'an has an entry on the Za ahan sanshi zhang in his catalogue of archaic alternate translations, but not for T101. Nonetheless, Dao’an says “from SA” 出雜阿含 in the entries on the twenty five titles that are actually included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang. Hayashiya claims that 雜阿含 in 出雜阿含 most likely refers to the Za ahan sanshi zhang. Hayashiya discusses confusion caused by the titles Za ahan sanshi zhang and "Dan juan za ahan" 単巻雑阿含 (T101) for catalogues after Dao’an. In short, nobody ever saw both the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan, and Hayashiya argues that that the Dan juan za ahan that is supposed to have been rediscovered at the time of Fajing was probably called the Da juan za ahan simply because the three texts had somehow already been lost from the Za ahan sanshi zhang, and the total number of the text was no longer thirty, as the title says. Thus, Hayashiya appears to think that the most plausible and important relation that we can posit between the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan, in order to understand the different descriptions given by different catalogues, is that "Dan juan za ahan" is the name used to refer to a text with almost the same content as the Za ahan sanshi zhang, except that the Dan juan za ahan is missing the three aforementioned texts. He suggests that this use of the title, Dan juan za ahan, probably came from Sengyou, who listed both the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan without actually seeing either of them, but the use may be also supported by the fact that Dao’an himself called the Za ahan sanshi zhang simply "Za ahan" 雑阿含 in the entries on its constituent texts. Hayashiya concludes all of the entries that regard the Za ahan sanshi zhang as an anonymous scripture should be excised, since the text is translated by An Shigao 安世高. He also recommend excising all the entries on the Dan juan za ahan, and on the twenty five individual texts listed in the catalogues separately from the Za ahan sanshi zhang, because those entries are redundant. |
1258-1264 |
A Za ahan sanshi zhang 雜阿含三十章 ("Thirty Chapters from the Samyuktagama") is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄, but was regarded as lost at the time of Sengyou. The Za ahan sanshi zhang consisted of thirty texts. Hayashiya maintains that the Dan juan za ahan 単巻雑阿含 in the Taisho (T101) consists of twenty seven of those thirty texts. Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations somehow lists twenty five texts out of those thirty as independent titles, separately from the Za ahan sanshi zhang. The three texts that were included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang but not in T101 are the Jiu heng jing 九横經 T150B, the Ba zheng dao 八正道 T112 and the Shudusheng piluomen jing 署杜乘披羅門經. Among the thirty titles, only the Shudusheng piluomen jing is now lost. Hayashiya refers to section 2, chapter 5 of Part III of the current work for a detailed discussion on the twenty five titles listed in the Dao'an's catalogue which are actually part of T101. Hayashiya compares the vocabulary and tone of the 29 texts that are included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang (and in T101 as well, except for two of them). He concludes that all of them are translated by the same person, and since T150B and T112 are considered An Shigao's 安世高 translation, the entire group of T101/Za ahan sanshi zhang should be by An Shigao as well. Dao'an has an entry on the Za ahan sanshi zhang in his catalogue of archaic alternate translations, but not for T101. Nonetheless, Dao’an says “from SA” 出雜阿含 in the entries on the twenty five titles that are actually included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang. Hayashiya claims that 雜阿含 in 出雜阿含 most likely refers to the Za ahan sanshi zhang. Hayashiya discusses confusion caused by the titles Za ahan sanshi zhang and "Dan juan za ahan" 単巻雑阿含 (T101) for catalogues after Dao’an. In short, nobody ever saw both the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan, and Hayashiya argues that that the Dan juan za ahan that is supposed to have been rediscovered at the time of Fajing was probably called the Da juan za ahan simply because the three texts had somehow already been lost from the Za ahan sanshi zhang, and the total number of the text was no longer thirty, as the title says. Thus, Hayashiya appears to think that the most plausible and important relation that we can posit between the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan, in order to understand the different descriptions given by different catalogues, is that "Dan juan za ahan" is the name used to refer to a text with almost the same content as the Za ahan sanshi zhang, except that the Dan juan za ahan is missing the three aforementioned texts. He suggests that this use of the title, Dan juan za ahan, probably came from Sengyou, who listed both the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan without actually seeing either of them, but the use may be also supported by the fact that Dao’an himself called the Za ahan sanshi zhang simply "Za ahan" 雑阿含 in the entries on its constituent texts. Hayashiya concludes all of the entries that regard the Za ahan sanshi zhang as an anonymous scripture should be excised, since the text is translated by An Shigao 安世高. He also recommend excising all the entries on the Dan juan za ahan, and on the twenty five individual texts listed in the catalogues separately from the Za ahan sanshi zhang, because those entries are redundant. An Shigao, 安世高 T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章 T0112; 佛說八正道經; 雜阿含三十章 T0150B; 九橫經; 雜阿含三十章 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hīnayāna translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taishō (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SĀ 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SĀ 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
1323-1332 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this text with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 (and with alternate titles He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 and Ju mo pi jing 聚沫譬經) as an offshoot text of the Samyuktagama 雜阿含經. Hayashiya claims that this text is an alternate translation of a text in SA 雜阿含 (T99), because it is older than the SA 雜阿含 translated by Gunabhadra. Hence, the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 should have been recorded as such, and not as an offshoot text. Nonetheless, Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in listing this text as an offshoot text. Jingtai did not record the length of the text for this reason. Thus, it is unclear if the text was extant at Jingtai’s time or not. Still, all the catalogues down to Jingtai regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 as an anonymous scripture. LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: LDSBJ regarded this text, with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋 period without, but does not give any supporting evidence. DZKZM followed LDSBJ in this regard. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists three different texts related to the He zhong da ju mo jing, which are: the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高; the Shui mo suo piao jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the He zhong da ju mo jing as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Zhisheng regards the first two titles as extant, and the last one, the [second] He zhong da ju mo jing, as lost. Thus, KYL listed three texts with those titles, while all the other previous major catalogues showed only one. Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hinayana translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taisho (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SA 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SA 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations is what is now shown mistakenly as the Wu yin piyu jing T105. This should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0105; 五陰譬喻經; 河中大聚沫經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hīnayāna translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taishō (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SĀ 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SĀ 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
1323-1332 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this text with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 (and with alternate titles He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 and Ju mo pi jing 聚沫譬經) as an offshoot text of the Samyuktagama 雜阿含經. Hayashiya claims that this text is an alternate translation of a text in SA 雜阿含 (T99), because it is older than the SA 雜阿含 translated by Gunabhadra. Hence, the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 should have been recorded as such, and not as an offshoot text. Nonetheless, Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in listing this text as an offshoot text. Jingtai did not record the length of the text for this reason. Thus, it is unclear if the text was extant at Jingtai’s time or not. Still, all the catalogues down to Jingtai regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 as an anonymous scripture. LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: LDSBJ regarded this text, with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋 period without, but does not give any supporting evidence. DZKZM followed LDSBJ in this regard. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists three different texts related to the He zhong da ju mo jing, which are: the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高; the Shui mo suo piao jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the He zhong da hu mo jing as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Zhisheng regards the first two titles as extant, and the last one, the [second] He zhong da ju mo jing, as lost. Thus, KYL listed three texts with those titles, while all the other previous major catalogues showed only one. Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hinayana translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taisho (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SA 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SA 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations is what is now shown mistakenly as the Wu yin piyu jing T105. This should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0106; 佛說水沫所漂經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: LDSBJ 三寶, KYL 開元錄 and the Taishō: Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of T107 and maintains that they are the same as that of An Shigao. Thus, he concludes that this text needs to be re-classified as An Shigao's translation. The attribution to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ and KYL should be discarded. Also, the entries of this text should be removed from any calatalogues of anonymous scriptures. |
1318-1319 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Zi shou yi bu zi shou jing 自守亦不自守經 is listed in this catalogue and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this title in the category of alternate translations from the Samyuktagama, since the text is an alternate translation of SA 277 (juan 11). Yancong and Jingtai did the same, while Jingtai showed the length of the text as one sheet 紙. The text was certainly extant from the Liang 梁 period to the Tang 唐 period, and considered an anonymous scripture by all the reliable catalogues. LDSBJ 三寶, KYL 開元錄 and the Taisho: LDSBJ listed this text (with the title Bu zi shou yi jing 不自守意經) as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, with no substantial reasons. KYL followed LDSBJ in this regard, and because of that the Bu zi shou yi jing in the Taisho (T107) is shown as Zhi Qian’s translation. Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of T107 and maintains that they are the same as that of An Shigao. Thus, he concludes that this text needs to be re-classified as An Shigao's translation. The attribution to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ and KYL should be discarded. Also, the entries of this text should be removed from any calatalogues of anonymous scriptures. An Shigao, 安世高 T0107; 自守亦不自守經; 佛說不自守意經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: Thus, Hayashiya concludes that T114 cannot be Zhi Yao's translation, and that the text must be listed as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. |
1304-1305 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Shan ma you san xiang jing 善馬有三相經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Since this text was considered an alternate translation of Samyuktagama 雜阿含 920 (found in juan 巻 33), Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Ma you san xiang jing 馬有三相經 in the category of alternate translations of the Samyuktagama. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu also classified this text as an alternate translations of part of SA. It was extant also in the Sui 隋 period. Jingtai recorded its length as two sheets 紙. Thus, this text was extant since the time of Sengyou down to the Tang 唐 period, while regarded as an anonymous scripture. LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: However, LDSBJ classifies the Ma you san xiang jing as translated by Zhi Yao 支曜 in the Latter Han 後漢 period, and KYL followed LDSBJ in this regard. Hayashiya maintains that this attribution is groundless, like LDSBJ’s other attributions to Zhi Yao which are not found in earlier catalogues. Hayashiya points out that the Ma you san xiang jing is extant today as T114, and maintains that although the tone and vocabulary of T114 are that of the Latter Han 後漢 period, they are quite different from that of the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 translated by Zhi Yao. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that T114 cannot be Zhi Yao's translation, and that the text must be listed as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0114; 佛說馬有三相經; 善馬有三相經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya concludes that T115 is not Zhi Yao's translation, and has to be listed as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period, because the title was listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and because the vocabulary and the tone of the text are of that period, while not matching those of any known translators. |
1305-1307 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Ma you ba bi'e tai jing 馬有八弊悪態經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. This text is extant today as the Ma you ba tai pi ren jing馬有八態譬人經 T115. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: There is also a Ma you ba tai jing 馬有八態經 in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Hayashiya asserts that the Ma you ba bi'e tai jing and the Ma you ba tai jing are completely different texts, referring to Chapter two of Part III of the current work. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists the Ma you ba tai pi ren jing as an alternate translation from the Samyuktagama, and shows the Ma you ba tai jing separately as an offshoot text from SA. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai recorded the length of the Ma you ba tai pi ren jing as two sheets 紙. Thus, catalogues down to Jingtai consider the Ma you ba tai pi ren jing and the Ma you ba tai jing as different texts, the former as an extant anonymous scripture and the latter as an offshoot text of SA. LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: LDSBJ regards the Ma you ba tai pi ren jing and the Ma you ba dai jing as one and the same text, and lists it as translated by Zhi Yao 支曜 in the Latter Han 後漢 period. KYL followed LDSBJ in this regard. Hayashiya asserts that the two titles refer to different texts and the attribution to Zhi Yao is incorrect, referring to Chapter two of Part III of the current material. Hayashiya concludes that T115 is not Zhi Yao's translation, and has to be listed as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period, because the title was listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and because the vocabulary and the tone of the text are of that period, while not matching those of any known translators. T0115; 佛說馬有八態譬人經; 馬有八弊悪態經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 is as follows: A Jie de xiang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Jie de xiang jing (1 juan) 戒徳香經一巻. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 in its "Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an independent alternate translation 別品異譯 from the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含. Yancong (仁壽録) followed Fajing in his note on this text. Hayashiya points out that the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Fajing is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded a Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 with a length of two sheets 紙. The Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ. KYL 開元錄 also gives the title the same ascription, with Jie de jing 戒徳經 as an alternate title. KYL claims that the text is an independent alternate translation 別品殊譯 from the “Dizhu” chapter 地主品 of the Ekottarikāgama 增一阿含. Thus, Fajing and KYL refer to different scriptures as the text corresponding too the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 (Fajing says it is an alternate translation of the Saṃyuktāgama; while KYL instead refers to the Ekottarikāgama 增一阿含). However, Hayashiya maintains that neither Fajing nor KYL are wrong, because both the Saṃyuktāgama and the Ekottarikāgama contain a text that corresponds to the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經. KYL records the length of the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 as two sheets. Hayashiya maintains that, since Jingtai and KYL recorded the length of the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 as two sheets, it should have been slightly longer than one and a half registers long in the format of Jingtai. Then he points out that the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 T116 ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan is one and a half registers long, which matches the record in Jingtai and KYL. Moreover, the style of language of T116 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Based on these observations, Hayashiya asserts that T116 is the text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, Fajing, and KYL. Hayashiya also argues that the ascription of the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 to Tanwulan is incorrect, since the text was produced earlier than Tanwulan’s time, there is no good reason to support the ascription, and there are no extant texts that is can be proven to be Tanwulan’s work (Hayashiya explains these reasons at 660-668 of the same material). He concludes that the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, discarding the ascription to Tanwulan. |
701-703 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 is as follows: A Jie de xiang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Jie de xiang jing (1 juan) 戒徳香經一巻. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 in its "Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an independent alternate translation 別品異譯 from the Samyuktagama 雜阿含. Yancong (仁壽録) followed Fajing in his note on this text. Hayashiya points out that the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Fajing is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded a Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 with a length of two sheets 紙. The Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ. KYL 開元錄 also gives the title the same ascription, with Jie de jing 戒徳經 as an alternate title. KYL claims that the text is an independent alternate translation 別品殊譯 from the “Dizhu” chapter 地主品 of the Ekottarikagama 增一阿含. Thus, Fajing and KYL refer to different scriptures as the text corresponding too the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 (Fajing says it is an alternate translation of the Samyuktagama; while KYL instead refers to the Ekottarikagama 增一阿含). However, Hayashiya maintains that neither Fajing nor KYL are wrong, because both the Samyuktagama and the Ekottarikagama contain a text that corresponds to the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經. KYL records the length of the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 as two sheets. Hayashiya maintains that, since Jingtai and KYL recorded the length of the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 as two sheets, it should have been slightly longer than one and a half registers long in the format of Jingtai. Then he points out that the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 T116 ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan is one and a half registers long, which matches the record in Jingtai and KYL. Moreover, the style of language of T116 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Based on these observations, Hayashiya asserts that T116 is the text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, Fajing, and KYL. Hayashiya also argues that the ascription of the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 to Tanwulan is incorrect, since the text was produced earlier than Tanwulan’s time, there is no good reason to support the ascription, and there are no extant texts that is can be proven to be Tanwulan’s work (Hayashiya explains these reasons at 660-668 of the same material). He concludes that the Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, discarding the ascription to Tanwulan. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0116; 佛說戒德香經; 戒徳經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 listed a Boyeni wang jing 波耶匿王經, with Bosini wang jing 波斯匿王經 and Bosini wang sang mu jiing 波斯匿王喪母經 as alternate titles. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya points out that it is clear that Boye~ 波耶 is a mistaken orthography for Bosi~ 波斯. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經, with Bosini wang sang mu jing 波斯匿王喪母經 as an alternate title. The title Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing already appears in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 of CSZJJ 出三藏記集 as an extant scripture, with a note that it is “an excerpt from an Āgama 阿含.” Hayashiya maintains that, since Fajing regarded the Bosini wang jing and the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as the same text, it is likely that Sengyou’s listing of the two as different texts was a mistake, due to the substantial difference between the two titles. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same as Fajing did, and listed the text in the group of independent alternate translations of Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含, which is included among duplicate Hīnayāna translations 小乗經重譯. Jingtai also listed the same, and stated that the text was three sheets in length. Thus, we can know that the text was extant at least down to the Tang period, since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively. However, LDSBJ regarded the Bosini wang sang mu jing and the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as different texts. Moreover, it listed the Bosini wang sang mu jing twice, with different ascriptions. Thus, the catalogue contains a Bosini wang sang mu jing and Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing ascribed to Faju 法炬, and one more Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. As for the ascription to Faju 法炬, LDSBJ suggests that it came from the "old catalogue" 舊錄 and the "separate catalogue" 別錄. However, Hayashiya points out that Fei Changfang 費長房 must have seen the content of the "old catalogue" only in CSZJJ, and CSZJJ does not rely on the "old catalogue" in ascribing texts even once. Therefore, Fei Changfang cannot have seen the ascription of the Bosini wang sang mu jing/Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing to Faju in the "old catalogue". In the case of the "separate catalogue", LDSBJ states that most of its ascriptions to Jingsheng are based on that catalogue. Nonetheless, Hayashiya points out that if the "separate catalogue" contained the same entries and ascriptions as LDSBJ, such entries would have been reflected on CSZJJ and Fajing, but this is not the case. Hence, there cannot have been any ascriptions of the text to either Faju or Jingsheng in the "separate catalogue". Thus, Hayashiya asserts that it must have been Fei himself who first listed those three titles separately, ascribing them to Faju or Jingsheng without support. Regarding DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, although it usually follows LDSBJ, in this case, it differs from it by listing only two of the three entries in LDSBJ, i.e. the two titles ascribed to Faju. DZKZM excised the supposed text ascribed to Jingsheng, and regarded only the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as extant. KYL listed the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing ascribed to Faju with Bosini wang sang mu jing as an alternate title, thus excising the ~sang mu jing translated by Faju as an independent text. However, the catalogue kept the Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Jingsheng, the title which DZKZM had excised. Hayashiya points out that, while the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing was known to exist under that title from the Sui period, the two Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Faju and Jingsheng were “ghost scriptures” created by Fei Changfang, and hence the different inclusions and excision made by DZKZM and KYL are meaningless. Still, KYL recorded the length of the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as three sheets. Hayashiya claims that since this scripture is said to be three sheets long by both Jingtai and KYL, it should be approximately two and a half registers long in the format of the Taishō. Then he points out that the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 (T122) ascribed to Faju has just that length. Hayashiya therefore asserts that this is the text listed in catalogues from the Sui period. He claims that, although the style of language in T122 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, it is highly doubtful that the text is the work of Faju. This is because, as mentioned above, Fei Changfang’s ascription to Faju is unreliable, and in fact many of other extant texts ascribed to Faju by Changfang are observed be the works of different translators. Hayashiya suggests that T122 may be the Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 listed by Sengyou in CSZJJ, because at the end of T122 the Buddha gives the text a similar name, Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經. Hayashiya states that he hopes to explore this possibility further when he has a chance to work more on CSZJJ. Hayashiya claims that there is no scripture that can be ascribed to Faju with confidence. Among the four titles that has been ascribed to him since CSZJJ, one is lost and the other three, supposed to be extant, have not been proven to be Faju’s work. In addition, as stated above, many of the texts ascribed to Faju by Fei have different styles, and so cannot be the works of Faju alone. Thus, Hayashiya states that he has not succeeded in identifying the exact style of language of Faju. Thus, he maintains that, although there may well be some scriptures that are indeed works of Faju, all the texts ascribed to him should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture until further progress is made in relevant fields. Hayashiya concludes that the Bosini wang jing in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures had the alternate titles Bosini wang sang mu jing and Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing, and that it should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Western Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since the determination of its ascription requires further research. The three titles listed in LDSBJ should be excised. So, too, the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing that Sengyou included in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 should also be excised, since it is merely a double listing of the Bosini wang jing. |
734-740 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 listed a Boyeni wang jing 波耶匿王經, with Bosini wang jing 波斯匿王經 and Bosini wang sang mu jiing 波斯匿王喪母經 as alternate titles. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya points out that it is clear that Boye~ 波耶 is a mistaken orthography for Bosi~ 波斯. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經, with Bosini wang sang mu jing 波斯匿王喪母經 as an alternate title. The title Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing already appears in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 of CSZJJ 出三藏記集 as an extant scripture, with a note that it is “an excerpt from an Agama 阿含.” Hayashiya maintains that, since Fajing regarded the Bosini wang jing and the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as the same text, it is likely that Sengyou’s listing of the two as different texts was a mistake, due to the substantial difference between the two titles. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same as Fajing did, and listed the text in the group of independent alternate translations of Ekottarikagama 増一阿含, which is included among duplicate Hinayana translations 小乗經重譯. Jingtai also listed the same, and stated that the text was three sheets in length. Thus, we can know that the text was extant at least down to the Tang period, since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively. However, LDSBJ regarded the Bosini wang sang mu jing and the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as different texts. Moreover, it listed the Bosini wang sang mu jing twice, with different ascriptions. Thus, the catalogue contains a Bosini wang sang mu jing and Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing ascribed to Faju 法炬, and one more Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. As for the ascription to Faju 法炬, LDSBJ suggests that it came from the "old catalogue" 舊錄 and the "separate catalogue" 別錄. However, Hayashiya points out that Fei Changfang 費長房 must have seen the content of the "old catalogue" only in CSZJJ, and CSZJJ does not rely on the "old catalogue" in ascribing texts even once. Therefore, Fei Changfang cannot have seen the ascription of the Bosini wang sang mu jing/Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing to Faju in the "old catalogue". In the case of the "separate catalogue", LDSBJ states that most of its ascriptions to Jingsheng are based on that catalogue. Nonetheless, Hayashiya points out that if the "separate catalogue" contained the same entries and ascriptions as LDSBJ, such entries would have been reflected on CSZJJ and Fajing, but this is not the case. Hence, there cannot have been any ascriptions of the text to either Faju or Jingsheng in the "separate catalogue". Thus, Hayashiya asserts that it must have been Fei himself who first listed those three titles separately, ascribing them to Faju or Jingsheng without support. Regarding DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, although it usually follows LDSBJ, in this case, it differs from it by listing only two of the three entries in LDSBJ, i.e. the two titles ascribed to Faju. DZKZM excised the supposed text ascribed to Jingsheng, and regarded only the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as extant. KYL listed the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing ascribed to Faju with Bosini wang sang mu jing as an alternate title, thus excising the ~sang mu jing translated by Faju as an independent text. However, the catalogue kept the Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Jingsheng, the title which DZKZM had excised. Hayashiya points out that, while the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing was known to exist under that title from the Sui period, the two Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Faju and Jingsheng were “ghost scriptures” created by Fei Changfang, and hence the different inclusions and excision made by DZKZM and KYL are meaningless. Still, KYL recorded the length of the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as three sheets. Hayashiya claims that since this scripture is said to be three sheets long by both Jingtai and KYL, it should be approximately two and a half registers long in the format of the Taisho. Then he points out that the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 (T122) ascribed to Faju has just that length. Hayashiya therefore asserts that this is the text listed in catalogues from the Sui period. He claims that, although the style of language in T122 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, it is highly doubtful that the text is the work of Faju. This is because, as mentioned above, Fei Changfang’s ascription to Faju is unreliable, and in fact many of other extant texts ascribed to Faju by Changfang are observed be the works of different translators. Hayashiya suggests that T122 may be the Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 listed by Sengyou in CSZJJ, because at the end of T122 the Buddha gives the text a similar name, Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經. Hayashiya states that he hopes to explore this possibility further when he has a chance to work more on CSZJJ. Hayashiya claims that there is no scripture that can be ascribed to Faju with confidence. Among the four titles that has been ascribed to him since CSZJJ, one is lost and the other three, supposed to be extant, have not been proven to be Faju’s work. In addition, as stated above, many of the texts ascribed to Faju by Fei have different styles, and so cannot be the works of Faju alone. Thus, Hayashiya states that he has not succeeded in identifying the exact style of language of Faju. Thus, he maintains that, although there may well be some scriptures that are indeed works of Faju, all the texts ascribed to him should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture until further progress is made in relevant fields. Hayashiya concludes that the Bosini wang jing in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures had the alternate titles Bosini wang sang mu jing and Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing, and that it should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Western Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since the determination of its ascription requires further research. The three titles listed in LDSBJ should be excised. So, too, the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing that Sengyou included in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 should also be excised, since it is merely a double listing of the Bosini wang jing. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0122; 佛說波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; 波耶匿王經, 波斯匿王經, 波斯匿王喪母經, 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" |
|
The Xumoti nü jing 須摩提女經 (cf. T128a, T128b) is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records the title Xumoti nü jing as an alternate title of the Samojie jing 三摩竭經 translated by Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎, along with other alternate titles, Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒 [var. 分和] 檀王經 and Nan guowang jing 難國王經. However, since the Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經 is listed separately in Dao’an’s list, Dao’an would have recorded the same text twice, if the Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經 were an alternate name for the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經. This is highly unlikely, Hayashiya maintains. Sengyou lists the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 and Nan guowang jing 難國王經 separately as well in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, showing that he regarded all three titles refer to separate texts. However, Sengyou states that the difference between the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing is minor. Hayashiya thinks that the Sanmojie jing and Fenhetan wang jing are variations of the same text, with only minor differences that were made during the process of transmission. He further points out that the content of the surviving Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 T129 suggests that the text could have been called Nan guowang jing as well. The Nan guowang jing was listed as an unseen text by Sengyou, so it is plausible that Nan guowang jing was indeed an alternate title of the Sanmojie jing. Thus, it might appear that Fajing is right that the Sanmojie jing, Fenhetan wang jing and Nan guowang jing are the same text. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is not right in regarding the Xumoti nü jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as the same text. Hayashiya shows three reasons for this claim. Firstly, these two texts are clearly shown as different by Dao’an. Secondly, all three texts---the Xumoti nü jing, the Sanmojie jing, and the Fenhetan wang jing---were extant in Sengyou’s time, so if the Xumoti nü jing and the Fenhetan wang jing really could have been considered as the same text, Sengyou would have stated that there were only minor differences between the two texts, as he did in the case of the Sanmojie jing. Thirdly, the surviving Xumoti nü jing T128 and Sanmojie jing T129 are clearly different in content, although both must have been composed in the the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. For these reasons, Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was wrong in considering the Xumoti nü jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as the same text. Hayashiya claims that although it may appear odd that such a mistake as this can occur even in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which was produced through discussions by twenty excellent scholars 大徳, the most plausible cause of the confusion is a daughter of Anāthapiṇḍada 給孤獨長者: Since the stories of both the Xumoti nü jing and the Sanmojie jing are about the same woman, if scholars who had directly seen the two texts merely summarised their content, the two could have been easily misunderstood to be the same during discussions among the group of scholars. There are two Xumoti nü jing in the Taishō, one from the Korean edition (T128a), and the other from the (Song, Yuan and) Ming edition (T128b). They are clearly different: T128b is almost double the length of T128a. T128b contains many words that are not in the former, although the two share a significant amount of vocabulary. As such, these two text must have been composed by different translators using different original texts. Judging from their vocabulary, Hayashiya judges, both texts are old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Thus, although the Xumoti nü jing has been recorded as a single text ever since CSZJJ 出三藏記集, there are actually two Xumoti nü jing. This leads to the question of which is the one listed in Dao’an. Hayashiya argues that Dao’an referred to T128a. This is because T128a uses Xumoti 須摩提 all the way through, while T128b mostly uses the transcription Xiumoti 修摩提 instead of Xumoti 須摩提. However, Yancong and Jingtai follow Fajing and regard the Xumoti nü jing and the Sanmojie jing as the same text. Since Jingtai shows the length of the text as eight sheets 紙, the text listed in Jingtai must have been T129, not the Xumoti nü jing, because both versions of the Xumoti nü jing (T128a, T128b) are not of that length. Hence, there is no record of the Xumoti nü jing in those catalogues that confuse the text with the Sanmojie jing. LDSBJ 三寶記 shows the Xumoti nü jing, the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as different texts. The Xumoti nü jing is listed as Zhi Qian’s translation, the Sanmojie jing as by Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎, and the Fenhetan wang jing as by Juqu jingsheng. (For details on LDSBJ entries on the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing, Hayashiya refers to his own article about the Fenhetan wang jing in Hayashiya 1941, the present source.) DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ’s ascription of the three texts. However, the text of the Xumoti nü jing had been found by the time of DZKZM, as the catalogue shows the title with its length, viz., seven sheets long. This length is about six registers 段 in the Taishō. The Korean version is of about that length, and so this should be the text shown in DZKZM. KYL 開元錄 also listed the Xumoti nü jing, the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing separately, with the same ascriptions as LDSBJ and DZKZM. The Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing should be regarded as the same text, so the entry on the Fenhetan wang jing is redundant. KYL listed the Xumoti nü jing as translated by Zhi Qian, but neither of KYL and LDSBJ shows any support for that, and the vocabulary and tone of the two surviving Xumoti nü jing differs from that of Zhi Qian. Hence, the Xumoti nü jing (presumably, in the Korean version) should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or more plausibly, of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Also, the other version of the Xumoti nü jing, which was not listed either by Dao’an or Sengyou, should be listed separately as an anonymous scripture of the same period. |
865-873 |
The Xumoti nu jing 須摩提女經 (cf. T128a, T128b) is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records the title Xumoti nu jing as an alternate title of the Samojie jing 三摩竭經 translated by Zhu Luyan 竺律炎, along with other alternate titles, Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒 [var. 分和] 檀王經 and Nan guowang jing 難國王經. However, since the Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經 is listed separately in Dao’an’s list, Dao’an would have recorded the same text twice, if the Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經 were an alternate name for the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經. This is highly unlikely, Hayashiya maintains. Sengyou lists the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 and Nan guowang jing 難國王經 separately as well in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, showing that he regarded all three titles refer to separate texts. However, Sengyou states that the difference between the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing is minor. Hayashiya thinks that the Sanmojie jing and Fenhetan wang jing are variations of the same text, with only minor differences that were made during the process of transmission. He further points out that the content of the surviving Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 T129 suggests that the text could have been called Nan guowang jing as well. The Nan guowang jing was listed as an unseen text by Sengyou, so it is plausible that Nan guowang jing was indeed an alternate title of the Sanmojie jing. Thus, it might appear that Fajing is right that the Sanmojie jing, Fenhetan wang jing and Nan guowang jing are the same text. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is not right in regarding the Xumoti nu jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as the same text. Hayashiya shows three reasons for this claim. Firstly, these two texts are clearly shown as different by Dao’an. Secondly, all three texts---the Xumoti nu jing, the Sanmojie jing, and the Fenhetan wang jing---were extant in Sengyou’s time, so if the Xumoti nu jing and the Fenhetan wang jing really could have been considered as the same text, Sengyou would have stated that there were only minor differences between the two texts, as he did in the case of the Sanmojie jing. Thirdly, the surviving Xumoti nu jing T128 and Sanmojie jing T129 are clearly different in content, although both must have been composed in the the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. For these reasons, Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was wrong in considering the Xumoti nu jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as the same text. Hayashiya claims that although it may appear odd that such a mistake as this can occur even in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which was produced through discussions by twenty excellent scholars 大徳, the most plausible cause of the confusion is a daughter of Anathapindada 給孤獨長者: Since the stories of both the Xumoti nu jing and the Sanmojie jing are about the same woman, if scholars who had directly seen the two texts merely summarised their content, the two could have been easily misunderstood to be the same during discussions among the group of scholars. There are two Xumoti nu jing in the Taisho, one from the Korean edition (T128a), and the other from the (Song, Yuan and) Ming edition (T128b). They are clearly different: T128b is almost double the length of T128a. T128b contains many words that are not in the former, although the two share a significant amount of vocabulary. As such, these two text must have been composed by different translators using different original texts. Judging from their vocabulary, Hayashiya judges, both texts are old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Thus, although the Xumoti nu jing has been recorded as a single text ever since CSZJJ 出三藏記集, there are actually two Xumoti nu jing. This leads to the question of which is the one listed in Dao’an. Hayashiya argues that Dao’an referred to T128a. This is because T128a uses Xumoti 須摩提 all the way through, while T128b mostly uses the transcription Xiumoti 修摩提 instead of Xumoti 須摩提. However, Yancong and Jingtai follow Fajing and regard the Xumoti nu jing and the Sanmojie jing as the same text. Since Jingtai shows the length of the text as eight sheets 紙, the text listed in Jingtai must have been T129, not the Xumoti nu jing, because both versions of the Xumoti nu jing (T128a, T128b) are not of that length. Hence, there is no record of the Xumoti nu jing in those catalogues that confuse the text with the Sanmojie jing. LDSBJ 三寶記 shows the Xumoti nu jing, the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as different texts. The Xumoti nu jing is listed as Zhi Qian’s translation, the Sanmojie jing as by Zhu Luyan 竺律炎, and the Fenhetan wang jing as by Juqu jingsheng. (For details on LDSBJ entries on the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing, Hayashiya refers to his own article about the Fenhetan wang jing in Hayashiya 1941, the present source.) DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ’s ascription of the three texts. However, the text of the Xumoti nu jing had been found by the time of DZKZM, as the catalogue shows the title with its length, viz., seven sheets long. This length is about six registers 段 in the Taisho. The Korean version is of about that length, and so this should be the text shown in DZKZM. KYL 開元錄 also listed the Xumoti nu jing, the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing separately, with the same ascriptions as LDSBJ and DZKZM. The Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing should be regarded as the same text, so the entry on the Fenhetan wang jing is redundant. KYL listed the Xumoti nu jing as translated by Zhi Qian, but neither of KYL and LDSBJ shows any support for that, and the vocabulary and tone of the two surviving Xumoti nu jing differs from that of Zhi Qian. Hence, the Xumoti nu jing (presumably, in the Korean version) should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or more plausibly, of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Also, the other version of the Xumoti nu jing, which was not listed either by Dao’an or Sengyou, should be listed separately as an anonymous scripture of the same period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0128; 須摩提女經 |
|
須摩提女經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records this title 須摩提女經 as an alternate title of三摩竭經 translated by 竺律炎, along with other alternate titles, 忿惒檀王經 and 難國王經. However, since 忿惒檀王經 is listed separately in Dao’an’s list, so Dao’an must have recorded the same text twice if 忿惒檀王經 were an alternate name for三摩竭經. This is highly unlikely, Hayashiya maintains. Sengyou lists 三摩竭經 and 難國王經 separately as well in 失譯雑經錄, showing that he regarded all of the three titles refer to different texts. However, Sengyou states that the difference between 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 is minor. Hayashiya thinks that 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 are variations of the same text, only with minor differences that were made during the process of transmission. He further points out that the content of the surviving 三摩竭經 T129 suggests that the text could have been called 難國王經as well. 難國王經 was listed as an unseen text by Sengyou, so it is plausible that 難國王經 was indeed an alternate title of 三摩竭經. Thus, as far as 三摩竭經, 忿惒檀王經 and 難國王經 are concerned, Fajing’s view that they are alternate titles of the same text appears to be correct. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is not right in regarding 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 as the same text. Hyashiya shows three reasons for claiming so. Firstly, these two texts are shown clearly as different by Dao’an. Secondly, since all of 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 were extant in Sengyo’s time, so if 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 could really have been considered as the same text, Sengyou would have stated that there were only minor differences between the two texts, like he did in the case of 三摩竭經. Thirdly, the surviving 須摩提女經 T128 and 三摩竭經T129 are, although both must have been composed in the the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, clearly different in content. For these reasons, Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was wrong in considering 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 as the same text. Hayashiya claims that, although it may appear odd that such a mistake as this can occur even in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which was produced through discussions by twenty excellent scholars 大徳. He thinks that the most plausible cause of the confusion is the woman of 給孤獨長者: Since both of the stories of 須摩提女經and 三摩竭經 are about the same woman, if merely the explanation of the content of the two texts was provided by the scholars who had directly seen them, the two could have been easily misunderstood to be the same during discussions among the group of scholars. There are two 須摩提女經 in Taishō, the one came from the 麗 book 麗本 and the other from the 明 book 明本. They are clearly different: The latter is almost double in length of the former. The latter contains many words that are not in the former, although the two share the significant amount of vocabularies. As such, these two text must have been composed by different translators using different original texts. Judging from the vocabularies, both of them are old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Thus, although 須摩提女經 is recorded as a single text ever since in CSZJJ 出三藏記集, there are actually two 須摩提女經s. This leads to the question that which one is the one listed in Dao’an’s list. Hayashiya argues that Dao’an referred to the 麗本 version. This is because the 麗本 version uses 須摩提 all the way through, while the 明本 version mostly uses the word 修摩提 instead of 須摩提. In any case, adding to the fact that 須摩提女經 is a different text from 三摩竭經, there are two 須摩提女經s, with only one of the two listed in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. However, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and regarded 須摩提女經 and 三摩竭經 as the same text. Since Jingtai shows the length of the text as eight sheets 紙 long, the listed text at the time of Jingtai was三摩竭經, not 須摩提女經, because both versions of須摩提女經s are not of that length. Hence, there was no record of 須摩提女經 in those catalogues that confuse the text with 三摩竭經 . LDSBJ 三寶記 shows 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 as different texts. 須摩提女經 is listed as Zhi Qian’s translation, 三摩竭經 as 竺律炎’s, and 忿惒檀王經 as 京聲’s. (For the details of entries of 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 in LDSBJ, Hayashiya refers to his own article about 忿惒檀王經 in Hayashiya 1941, the present source.) DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ’s ascription of the three texts. However, the text of 須摩提女經 had been found at the time of DZKZM, as the catalogue shows the title with its length, viz., seven sheets long. This length is about six rows 段 in Taishō. The 麗本 version is of about that length, so that should be the one shown in DZKZM. KYL 開元錄 also listed 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 separately, with the same ascription as LDSBJ and DZKZM. 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 should be regarded as the same text, so the entry of 忿惒檀王經 was redundant. KYL listed 須摩提女經 as translated by Zhi Qian, but neither of KYL and LDSBJ shows any support for that, and the vocabulary and tone of the two surviving 須摩提女經s are different from those of Zhi Qian’s. Hence, 須摩提女經 (presumably the麗本 version of it) should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or more plausibly, of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Also, the other version of 須摩提女經, which was not listed either by Dao’an or Sengyou, should be listed separately as an anonymous scripture of the same period |
865-873, 959 |
須摩提女經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records this title 須摩提女經 as an alternate title of三摩竭經 translated by 竺律炎, along with other alternate titles, 忿惒檀王經 and 難國王經. However, since 忿惒檀王經 is listed separately in Dao’an’s list, so Dao’an must have recorded the same text twice if 忿惒檀王經 were an alternate name for三摩竭經. This is highly unlikely, Hayashiya maintains. Sengyou lists 三摩竭經 and 難國王經 separately as well in 失譯雑經錄, showing that he regarded all of the three titles refer to different texts. However, Sengyou states that the difference between 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 is minor. Hayashiya thinks that 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 are variations of the same text, only with minor differences that were made during the process of transmission. He further points out that the content of the surviving 三摩竭經 T129 suggests that the text could have been called 難國王經as well. 難國王經 was listed as an unseen text by Sengyou, so it is plausible that 難國王經 was indeed an alternate title of 三摩竭經. Thus, as far as 三摩竭經, 忿惒檀王經 and 難國王經 are concerned, Fajing’s view that they are alternate titles of the same text appears to be correct. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is not right in regarding 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 as the same text. Hyashiya shows three reasons for claiming so. Firstly, these two texts are shown clearly as different by Dao’an. Secondly, since all of 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 were extant in Sengyo’s time, so if 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 could really have been considered as the same text, Sengyou would have stated that there were only minor differences between the two texts, like he did in the case of 三摩竭經. Thirdly, the surviving 須摩提女經 T128 and 三摩竭經T129 are, although both must have been composed in the the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, clearly different in content. For these reasons, Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was wrong in considering 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 as the same text. Hayashiya claims that, although it may appear odd that such a mistake as this can occur even in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which was produced through discussions by twenty excellent scholars 大徳. He thinks that the most plausible cause of the confusion is the woman of 給孤獨長者: Since both of the stories of 須摩提女經and 三摩竭經 are about the same woman, if merely the explanation of the content of the two texts was provided by the scholars who had directly seen them, the two could have been easily misunderstood to be the same during discussions among the group of scholars. There are two 須摩提女經 in Taisho, the one came from the 麗 book 麗本 and the other from the 明 book 明本. They are clearly different: The latter is almost double in length of the former. The latter contains many words that are not in the former, although the two share the significant amount of vocabularies. As such, these two text must have been composed by different translators using different original texts. Judging from the vocabularies, both of them are old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Thus, although 須摩提女經 is recorded as a single text ever since in CSZJJ 出三藏記集, there are actually two 須摩提女經s. This leads to the question that which one is the one listed in Dao’an’s list. Hayashiya argues that Dao’an referred to the 麗本 version. This is because the 麗本 version uses 須摩提 all the way through, while the 明本 version mostly uses the word 修摩提 instead of 須摩提. In any case, adding to the fact that 須摩提女經 is a different text from 三摩竭經, there are two 須摩提女經s, with only one of the two listed in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. However, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and regarded 須摩提女經 and 三摩竭經 as the same text. Since Jingtai shows the length of the text as eight sheets 紙 long, the listed text at the time of Jingtai was三摩竭經, not 須摩提女經, because both versions of須摩提女經s are not of that length. Hence, there was no record of 須摩提女經 in those catalogues that confuse the text with 三摩竭經 . LDSBJ 三寶記 shows 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 as different texts. 須摩提女經 is listed as Zhi Qian’s translation, 三摩竭經 as 竺律炎’s, and 忿惒檀王經 as 京聲’s. (For the details of entries of 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 in LDSBJ, Hayashiya refers to his own article about 忿惒檀王經 in Hayashiya 1941, the present source.) DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ’s ascription of the three texts. However, the text of 須摩提女經 had been found at the time of DZKZM, as the catalogue shows the title with its length, viz., seven sheets long. This length is about six rows 段 in Taisho. The 麗本 version is of about that length, so that should be the one shown in DZKZM. KYL 開元錄 also listed 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 separately, with the same ascription as LDSBJ and DZKZM. 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 should be regarded as the same text, so the entry of 忿惒檀王經 was redundant. KYL listed 須摩提女經 as translated by Zhi Qian, but neither of KYL and LDSBJ shows any support for that, and the vocabulary and tone of the two surviving 須摩提女經s are different from those of Zhi Qian’s. Hence, 須摩提女經 (presumably the麗本 version of it) should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or more plausibly, of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Also, the other version of 須摩提女經, which was not listed either by Dao’an or Sengyou, should be listed separately as an anonymous scripture of the same period Zhu Luyan, 竺律炎 T0129; 佛說三摩竭經; 難國王經; Xumoti nu jing 須摩提女經; Nan guowang jing 難國王經; Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經; 忿惒檀王經; Mojie wang jing 摩竭王經; Mojie guowang jing 摩竭國王經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Hayashiya mentions Tokiwa’s view that the Wu fude jing and another title, Xianzhe wu fu jing 賢者五福經, are the same text, and argues that this identification is incorrect. Hayashiya’s main reason for regarding the two as different is that the Xianzhe wu fu jing is listed separately in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures as an extant text. This being so, it is highly likely that the Xianzhe wu fu jing is a different text from the Wu fude jing of Dao’an’s catalogue. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Taishō: |
950-955 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Wu fude jing 五福徳經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also listed a Shi se li jing 施色力經 as an unseen text in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Hayashiya claims that this is just an alternate title for the Wu fude jing, and Sengyou listed the two titles separately because he had not seen the Shi se li jing. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed a Shi shi hu wu fude jing 施食獲五福徳經 with the Wu fude jing and the She se li jing as alternate titles, assuming that the two titles listed in CSZJJ refer to the same text. Hayashiya mentions Tokiwa’s view that the Wu fude jing and another title, Xianzhe wu fu jing 賢者五福經, are the same text, and argues that this identification is incorrect. Hayashiya’s main reason for regarding the two as different is that the Xianzhe wu fu jing is listed separately in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures as an extant text. This being so, it is highly likely that the Xianzhe wu fu jing is a different text from the Wu fude jing of Dao’an’s catalogue. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and used Fajing’s description. Jingtai stated that the text was two sheets 紙 long. Thus, a text entitled Wu fude jing or Shi shi hu wu fude jing was extant down to the Tang 唐 period, but its translator and date of composition were not specified. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ listed the Wu fude jing as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya states that, although no support was shown in LDSBJ, the ascription should be accepted because the text was listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: However, DZKZM listed the Wu fude jing and a Shi shi hu wu fubao jing 施食獲五福報經 separately, the former as a Mahayana text, the latter as a Hinayana text. Hayashiya maintains that probably DZKZM was misled by the difference in appearance between the alternate titles. KYL 開元錄: KYL follows DZKZM’s direction, and presents the Shi shi hu wu fubao jing as an extant anonymous scripture of the E. Jin 東晋 period, and the Wu fude jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya points out that, since there is only one text referred to by those titles, it is mistaken to give them different attributions. Taisho: Hayashiya claims that since the extant Shi shi hu wu fubao jing 食施獲五福報經 T132 is an alternate translation of an Ekottarikagama 増一阿含 T125 text, and is probably the text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, the supposed Mahayana Wu fude jing should be disregarded. The date of composition of T132 cannot be the E. Jin 東晋 period, Thus, the text should be recorded as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. The text is called both the Shi shi hu wu fubao jing 食施獲五福報經 and the Wu fude jing 五福徳經 because the text contains both the term wu fude 五福徳 and a way of obtaining those five types of merit 五福徳 by giving almsfood 施食. The Taisho contains Korean and Ming variants, but the differences between them are very minor and highly likely to have been made during the process of transmission. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0132; 五福徳經; 施色力經; 施食獲五福報經; 施食獲五福徳經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A 七婦經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Qi fu jing in one juan 七婦經一巻. The following two alternate translations of this text existed at the time of Sengyou: the Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經 (with an alternate title Yuye jing 玉瑘經), listed next to the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 in the category of extant texts in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. All of these texts were extant at that time. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes only two of those three texts, listing the Yuye jing (with the Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 and the Qi fu jing) and Asuda jing. Fajing regarded "Qi fu jing" as just an alternate title of the Yuye jing. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, followed Fajing in listing only two of the three, viz., the Asuda jing and the Yuye jing (with the Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing and the Qi fu jing) in the category of repeat Hīnayāna translations 小乗經重譯經. Based on this, Hayashiya maintains that only the Asuda jing and the Yuye jing were extant in the Sui period. He also claims that the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures was regarded as an alternate title of the Yuye jing, since the Yuye jing described seven types of women (七婦) and was sometimes called the Qi fu jing. [Hayashiya seems to think, without clearly saying so, that the Yuye nü jing in Dao’an’s catalogue became lost (and was later refound, see below), and instead, the Qi fu jing was called Yuye nü jing by Fajing and other catalogues.] Jingtai records the same two titles, Asuda jing and Yuye jing, with lengths of two sheets and four sheets respectively. DTNDL 内典錄 records the same titles with the same lengths in its catalogue of the extant canon. It was LDSBJ that first ascribed the Yuye jing to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the Asuda jing to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. Following LDSBJ, KYL lists the Yuye jing (with the alternate title Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu wu jing jing 長者詣佛説子婦無敬經) ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan, and the Asuda jing ascribed to Guṇabhadra, as well as the Yuye nü jing (with the alternate title Yuye jing) and the Qi fu jing from Dao’an’s catalogue as anonymous scriptures. The Qi fu jing is regarded as lost, the other three extant. Zhisheng 智昇 states that there are three extant alternate translations, because the Yuye jing 玉耶經 had been was found by his time. KYL lists the lengths of the three texts in its catalogue of the extant canon as follows: Yuye nü jing (Yuye jing): three sheets Hayashiya points out that the Yuye nü jing in three sheets is added to the Asuda jing and Yuye jing included in the catalogues prior to LDSBJ (although KYL records the length of the Yuye jing as five sheets, instead of the four sheets stated by Jingtai). There are also three alternate translations of the Qi fu jing in the Taishō, which are entitled Asuda jing 阿遬達經 T141, Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經 T142, and Yuye jing 玉耶經 T143. Among these, the Taishō includes two versions of the Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經, one checked against the Song and the Yuan editions, and the other against the Ming edition. However, Hayashiya disregards the latter because it contains too many mistakes and too often confuses the Yuye nü jing with the Yuye jing. Among these three texts (T141, T142, T143) in the Taishō, Hayashiya maintains that T141 is the text that was listed in the aforegoing catalogues as Asuda jing, because T141 is about two sheets in length, and the word Asuda 阿遬達 is so distinct that the two titles using it should refer to the same text. As for T142 and T143, Hayashiya compares the style and contents of the two and points out that they are translations of very similar original texts, and the translators of one must have referred to the other in the course of translation. However, he emphasizes that they are different translations, not the same version with variants in transmission. As support for this claim, he lists the following differences between the two texts: (玉耶女經 T142) (玉耶經 T143) Hayashiya points out that, for example, a set of three zhang 鄣 are shown in T142 but not in T143, while the descriptions of the “ten evils” 十惡 in the two are fairly different in wording. Based on such differences, Hayashiya asserts that T142 and T143 cannot be two variant versions of the same translation. The Taishō ascribes T141 to Guṇabhadra and T143 to Tanwulan, following KYL, which is influenced by LDSBJ (T142 is treated as anonymous). However, Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary used by T141, T142, and T143 indicates that all three texts must have been produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Therefore, none of them can be the work of Guṇabhadra or Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that LDSBJ does not show any grounds for those ascriptions. This being the case, Sengyou must be right in listing the Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經 and the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 in his own catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, regarding all of them as extant. Hence, if several catalogues, including Fajing and Yancong, regard the Yuye nü jing and Qi fu jing as the same text, it must be a mere result of the fact that only two of the three alternate translations were extant in their time. As it is clear that the third translation is extant today, we should consider the Qi fu jing as an independent text, disregarding the identification made by Fajing, Yancong, etc. Given that the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue is still extant, it must be either T142 or T143. Hayashiya maintains that T143 is the Qi fu jing, because it contains an explanation of “seven [types of] women” 七婦, while T142 does not. Accordingly, Hayashiya points out that, although KYL is right in listing 七婦經 again, it is incorrect in classifying it as a lost scripture, while assuming wrongly that the re-discovered text was the Yuye jing translated by Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the Qi fu jing of Dao’an’s catalogue (viz. T143), as well as T141 and T142, are all extant anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin period. (Hayashiya adds that the original title of the Asuda jing is probably *Aśokadatta Sūtra, and if so the text might have some connection with the Wuyoushi jing 無憂施經. He states that he will deal with this topic when he examines the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 further sometime in the future.) |
685-692 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A 七婦經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Qi fu jing in one juan 七婦經一巻. The following two alternate translations of this text existed at the time of Sengyou: the Yuye nu jing 玉耶女經 (with an alternate title Yuye jing 玉瑘經), listed next to the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 in the category of extant texts in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. All of these texts were extant at that time. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes only two of those three texts, listing the Yuye jing (with the Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 and the Qi fu jing) and Asuda jing. Fajing regarded "Qi fu jing" as just an alternate title of the Yuye jing. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, followed Fajing in listing only two of the three, viz., the Asuda jing and the Yuye jing (with the Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing and the Qi fu jing) in the category of repeat Hinayana translations 小乗經重譯經. Based on this, Hayashiya maintains that only the Asuda jing and the Yuye jing were extant in the Sui period. He also claims that the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures was regarded as an alternate title of the Yuye jing, since the Yuye jing described seven types of women (七婦) and was sometimes called the Qi fu jing. [Hayashiya seems to think, without clearly saying so, that the Yuye nu jing in Dao’an’s catalogue became lost (and was later refound, see below), and instead, the Qi fu jing was called Yuye nu jing by Fajing and other catalogues.] Jingtai records the same two titles, Asuda jing and Yuye jing, with lengths of two sheets and four sheets respectively. DTNDL 内典錄 records the same titles with the same lengths in its catalogue of the extant canon. It was LDSBJ that first ascribed the Yuye jing to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the Asuda jing to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅. Following LDSBJ, KYL lists the Yuye jing (with the alternate title Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu wu jing jing 長者詣佛説子婦無敬經) ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan, and the Asuda jing ascribed to Gunabhadra, as well as the Yuye nu jing (with the alternate title Yuye jing) and the Qi fu jing from Dao’an’s catalogue as anonymous scriptures. The Qi fu jing is regarded as lost, the other three extant. Zhisheng 智昇 states that there are three extant alternate translations, because the Yuye jing 玉耶經 had been was found by his time. KYL lists the lengths of the three texts in its catalogue of the extant canon as follows: Yuye nu jing (Yuye jing): three sheets Yuye jing (Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu wu jing jing, Yuye nu jing): five sheets Asuda jing: two sheets. Hayashiya points out that the Yuye nu jing in three sheets is added to the Asuda jing and Yuye jing included in the catalogues prior to LDSBJ (although KYL records the length of the Yuye jing as five sheets, instead of the four sheets stated by Jingtai). There are also three alternate translations of the Qi fu jing in the Taisho, which are entitled Asuda jing 阿遬達經 T141, Yuye nu jing 玉耶女經 T142, and Yuye jing 玉耶經 T143. Among these, the Taisho includes two versions of the Yuye nu jing 玉耶女經, one checked against the Song and the Yuan editions, and the other against the Ming edition. However, Hayashiya disregards the latter because it contains too many mistakes and too often confuses the Yuye nu jing with the Yuye jing. Among these three texts (T141, T142, T143) in the Taisho, Hayashiya maintains that T141 is the text that was listed in the aforegoing catalogues as Asuda jing, because T141 is about two sheets in length, and the word Asuda 阿遬達 is so distinct that the two titles using it should refer to the same text. As for T142 and T143, Hayashiya compares the style and contents of the two and points out that they are translations of very similar original texts, and the translators of one must have referred to the other in the course of translation. However, he emphasizes that they are different translations, not the same version with variants in transmission. As support for this claim, he lists the following differences between the two texts: (玉耶女經 T142) (玉耶經 T143) 一者小時父母所鄣 二者出嫁夫主所鄣 三者老時兒子所鄣 是爲三鄣、何等十惡 一者生時父母不憙 一者初生墮地父母不喜 二者養育無味 二者養育視無滋味 三者常憂嫁娶失禮 三者女人心常畏入 四者處々畏入 四者父母恒憂嫁娶 五者與父母別離 五者與父母生相離別 六者倚他門戸 六者常畏夫婿視其顔色 七者懐姙甚難 七者懐姙產生甚難 八者產生時難 八者女人小爲父母所撿錄 九者常畏夫主 九者中爲夫婿所制 十者常不得自在 十者年老爲兒孫所呵 是爲十惡 Hayashiya points out that, for example, a set of three zhang 鄣 are shown in T142 but not in T143, while the descriptions of the “ten evils” 十惡 in the two are fairly different in wording. Based on such differences, Hayashiya asserts that T142 and T143 cannot be two variant versions of the same translation. The Taisho ascribes T141 to Gunabhadra and T143 to Tanwulan, following KYL, which is influenced by LDSBJ (T142 is treated as anonymous). However, Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary used by T141, T142, and T143 indicates that all three texts must have been produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Therefore, none of them can be the work of Gunabhadra or Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that LDSBJ does not show any grounds for those ascriptions. This being the case, Sengyou must be right in listing the Yuye nu jing 玉耶女經 and the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 in his own catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, regarding all of them as extant. Hence, if several catalogues, including Fajing and Yancong, regard the Yuye nu jing and Qi fu jing as the same text, it must be a mere result of the fact that only two of the three alternate translations were extant in their time. As it is clear that the third translation is extant today, we should consider the Qi fu jing as an independent text, disregarding the identification made by Fajing, Yancong, etc. Given that the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue is still extant, it must be either T142 or T143. Hayashiya maintains that T143 is the Qi fu jing, because it contains an explanation of “seven [types of] women” 七婦, while T142 does not. Accordingly, Hayashiya points out that, although KYL is right in listing 七婦經 again, it is incorrect in classifying it as a lost scripture, while assuming wrongly that the re-discovered text was the Yuye jing translated by Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the Qi fu jing of Dao’an’s catalogue (viz. T143), as well as T141 and T142, are all extant anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin period. (Hayashiya adds that the original title of the Asuda jing is probably *Asokadatta Sutra, and if so the text might have some connection with the Wuyoushi jing 無憂施經. He states that he will deal with this topic when he examines the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 further sometime in the future.) Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0141; 佛說阿遬達經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 T0142; 玉耶女經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 T0143; 玉耶經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Taishō: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
907-910 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: CSZJJ records two more alternate translation of this text: a Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經, translated by Jiqu Jingsheng; and an anonymous Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. All three titles were extant at the time of Sengyou, and his claims that they were different are reliable. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed Juqu Jingsheng's version only, and regarded the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing for the record of the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. Jingtai records that the text was four sheets 紙 long. Taisho: The text recorded in Jingtai has been identified as the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145, which is listed in the Taisho as a translation by Huijian 慧簡 of the (Southern) Song 宋 period. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly much older than that of Juqu Jingsheng. Furthermore, there is a separate text entitled the Da'aidao bannihuan jing T144, which is listed as translated by Bo Fazu 白法祖. This is a different text from T145, and also is old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hence, Hayashiya argues, Fajing is wrong in regarding the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ followed CSZJJ, not Fajing, by listing the three titles separately: a Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經, and two Fo mu bannihuan jing. However, it assigned different translators to the three texts without any grounds. The listed names are Bo Fazu 白法祖, Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 and Huijian 慧簡. Neither of the surviving two texts in the Taisho mentioned above is a work of any of these three figures. Thus, Hayashiya rejects all of those attributions. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: DZKZM and KYL adopted LDSBJ’s descriptions and classified a text of four sheets in length – which had been called the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 – as Huijian’s translation, but also re-named it the Fomu bannihuan jing. Also, DZKZM and KYL listed a newly-found version that was seven sheets long as the Da'aidao bannihuan jing translated by Bo Fazu. Both attributions are incorrect. Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0144; 佛說大愛道般泥洹經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Taishō: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
907-910 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: CSZJJ records two more alternate translation of this text: a Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經, translated by Jiqu Jingsheng; and an anonymous Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. All three titles were extant at the time of Sengyou, and his claims that they were different are reliable. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed Juqu Jingsheng's version only, and regarded the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing for the record of the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. Jingtai records that the text was four sheets 紙 long. Taisho: The text recorded in Jingtai has been identified as the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145, which is listed in the Taisho as a translation by Huijian 慧簡 of the (Southern) Song 宋 period. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly much older than that of Juqu Jingsheng. Furthermore, there is a separate text entitled the Da'aidao bannihuan jing T144, which is listed as translated by Bo Fazu 白法祖. This is a different text from T145, and also is old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hence, Hayashiya argues, Fajing is wrong in regarding the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ followed CSZJJ, not Fajing, by listing the three titles separately: a Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經, and two Fo mu bannihuan jing. However, it assigned different translators to the three texts without any grounds. The listed names are Bo Fazu 白法祖, Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 and Huijian 慧簡. Neither of the surviving two texts in the Taisho mentioned above is a work of any of these three figures. Thus, Hayashiya rejects all of those attributions. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: DZKZM and KYL adopted LDSBJ’s descriptions and classified a text of four sheets in length – which had been called the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 – as Huijian’s translation, but also re-named it the Fomu bannihuan jing. Also, DZKZM and KYL listed a newly-found version that was seven sheets long as the Da'aidao bannihuan jing translated by Bo Fazu. Both attributions are incorrect. Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0145; 佛母般泥洹經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Shi meng jing 十夢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in 1 juan, with the alternate titles Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經, Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經, and Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing 國王不黎先泥十夢經, and also with the comment “My Lord [Dao] An says that this is taken from the Abhidharma” 安公云出阿毘曇. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou.. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing~不離先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang shi meng jing 國王十夢經 in the category of independent alternate translations 別品異譯 of the *Ekottarikāgama 增一阿含. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, records the same as Fajing. Thus, a text entitled Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing was certainly extant in the Sui period. Jingtai includes, also in the category of independent alternate translations of the *Ekottarikāgama, Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不黎先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang qi meng jing 國王七夢經, with a length of five sheets. Hayashiya points out that qi meng 七夢 in Guowang qi meng jing must be a scribal error for shi meng 十夢. DTNDL 内典錄 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 record the same. KYL lists the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing from Dao’an’s catalogue with the alternates titles Shi meng Shewei guowang shi meng jing 十夢經舎衞國王十夢經, and Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, separately from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不犁先尼~ that it ascribes to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya maintains that these two entries do not appear to be a simple case of repeat listing, because Zhisheng 智昇 also shows the lengths of the two titles, five sheets for the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing and four sheets for the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jin, and he clearly states that the two texts are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing must have been found by the time of KYL, and that it is apparently a different text from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing listed in the foregoing catalogues, since Fajing and Zhisheng judged that the new text was the Shi meng ming 十夢經 of Dao’an’s catalogue. In the Taishō, there exist the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 T146 categorized as anonymous, the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經 T147 with the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄, and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不犁先泥十夢經 T148 ascribed to Tanwulan. Hayashiya claims that, of these three, T148 must be the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing that existed since the Sui period, because the text refers to King Prasenajit 波斯匿王 as Bulixianni 不梨先泥, a transcription of the original word, Prasenajit/Pasenadi, and the text is just about four registers long, which is about five sheets, the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya also points out that the Taishō adds the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄 to T147 because the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions added the same to the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing [although the Taishō chose a different title to which to append this comment]. However, T147 is not included in any of the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 included in KYL is T146, because of T146 and T147, T147 is only two and a half registers long, while KYL records the length of the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing as four sheets. This shows that, Hayashiya points out, T147 was rediscovered at some point after KYL. The existence of the three texts suggests the possibility that the titles that Sengyou thought referred to one and the same text － Shewei guowang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing －were actually the titles of three different texts. Thus, Hayashiya stated, it is necessary to examine the style and content of each of the three extant texts to see if they are genuinely different. He asserts that all of them clearly show the characteristics of the W. Jin period or earlier. Yet, he claims that it is not easy to determine whether those texts were different from the outset, or are the variations of the same text, as both possibilities are supported by some evidence. The following factors suggest that the three texts are different: lengths; considerable differences in detail (the reason, according to Hayashiya, that the Korean edition states that T147 and T148 are different texts). However, Hayashiya argues that T146, T147, and T148 are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them arose in the transmission processes. He points out as a clue the comment on the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in Sengyou mentioned above, according to which Daoan held that the text was excerpted from the Abhidharma 安公云出阿毘曇. Although the text has been commonly classified as an independent alternate translation of the *Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya claims that, since Dao’an was involved in the translation work of the *Ekottarikāgama, his word 出阿毘曇 indicates that the Shi meng jing 十夢經 that Dao’an saw was different from the *Ekottarikāgama, if similar to some extent. Based on this assumption, Hayashiya compares the three texts and the corresponding part of the *Ekottarikāgama in detail. Then, he points out that: 1) The structure of the story differs considerably between the *Ekottarikāgama and the three texts; 2) When there is some sentence/passage in any of the three texts that seems to have been added afterwards, in most cases it is taken from the *Ekottarikāgama; and 3) the vocabulary of these three texts and the *Ekottarikāgama are largely similar. Accordingly, he claims that the three texts are fundamentally the same as each other, while differing from the *Ekottarikāgama. Based on those observations, Hayashiya argues for the following scenario: the Shi meng jing 十夢經 was translated before the *Ekottarikāgama and was referred to in the translation process of the *Ekottarikāgama; during oral transmission, parts of the Shi meng jing 十夢經 were changed so much that correction and supplementation was required when the text was transcribed; the *Ekottarikāgama was used as an important source for those works due to the similarity of the content; since the transcribing work was done separately in different places, perhaps due to the political condition of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, the three texts were produced, differing considerably in length and wording. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T146, T147, and T148 are the results of different modifications to the Shi meng jing, with reference to the *Ekottarikāgama. Although none of these texts preserves the original Shi meng jing, Hayashiya thinks that T147 is likely to be closest to it. He also points out that the T148 is quoted in its entirety in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which shows that the text was already in its present form by the Liang 梁 period. Given the above scenario , Sengyou was indeed right in treating Shewei Guowang shi meng jing, Bosini wang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi meng jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing as alternate titles of the Shi meng jing, rather than the titles of different texts. The ascription of T148 to Tanwulan, seen in KYL and the Taishō, was first given by LDSBJ. Hayashiya points out that this ascription cannot be correct, because any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been translated by Tanwulan, and because the style of the three texts in the Taishō is that of the W. Jin. Thus, the ascription to Tanwulan should be excised. Hayashiya adds that KYL is correct in including the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing (Shi meng jing) 舎衞國王夢見十事經（十夢經）from Dao’an’s catalogue, but incorrect in following LDSBJ by ascribing T148 to Tanwulan. Hayashiya ends by stating that the Shi meng jing in Dao’an’s catalogue should be listed again, while excising the ascription to Tanwulan. (In support of his claims about T146, T147, T148, and the Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya lists detailed differences and similarities between them at pages 676-680, stating that this is only part of the evidence he found in support of his views.) |
673-683 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Shi meng jing 十夢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in 1 juan, with the alternate titles Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經, Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經, and Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing 國王不黎先泥十夢經, and also with the comment “My Lord [Dao] An says that this is taken from the Abhidharma” 安公云出阿毘曇. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou.. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing~不離先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang shi meng jing 國王十夢經 in the category of independent alternate translations 別品異譯 of the *Ekottarikagama 增一阿含. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, records the same as Fajing. Thus, a text entitled Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing was certainly extant in the Sui period. Jingtai includes, also in the category of independent alternate translations of the *Ekottarikagama, Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不黎先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang qi meng jing 國王七夢經, with a length of five sheets. Hayashiya points out that qi meng 七夢 in Guowang qi meng jing must be a scribal error for shi meng 十夢. DTNDL 内典錄 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 record the same. KYL lists the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing from Dao’an’s catalogue with the alternates titles Shi meng Shewei guowang shi meng jing 十夢經舎衞國王十夢經, and Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, separately from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不犁先尼~ that it ascribes to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya maintains that these two entries do not appear to be a simple case of repeat listing, because Zhisheng 智昇 also shows the lengths of the two titles, five sheets for the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing and four sheets for the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jin, and he clearly states that the two texts are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing must have been found by the time of KYL, and that it is apparently a different text from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing listed in the foregoing catalogues, since Fajing and Zhisheng judged that the new text was the Shi meng ming 十夢經 of Dao’an’s catalogue. In the Taisho, there exist the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 T146 categorized as anonymous, the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經 T147 with the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄, and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不犁先泥十夢經 T148 ascribed to Tanwulan. Hayashiya claims that, of these three, T148 must be the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing that existed since the Sui period, because the text refers to King Prasenajit 波斯匿王 as Bulixianni 不梨先泥, a transcription of the original word, Prasenajit/Pasenadi, and the text is just about four registers long, which is about five sheets, the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya also points out that the Taisho adds the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄 to T147 because the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions added the same to the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing [although the Taisho chose a different title to which to append this comment]. However, T147 is not included in any of the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 included in KYL is T146, because of T146 and T147, T147 is only two and a half registers long, while KYL records the length of the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing as four sheets. This shows that, Hayashiya points out, T147 was rediscovered at some point after KYL. The existence of the three texts suggests the possibility that the titles that Sengyou thought referred to one and the same text - Shewei guowang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing -were actually the titles of three different texts. Thus, Hayashiya stated, it is necessary to examine the style and content of each of the three extant texts to see if they are genuinely different. He asserts that all of them clearly show the characteristics of the W. Jin period or earlier. Yet, he claims that it is not easy to determine whether those texts were different from the outset, or are the variations of the same text, as both possibilities are supported by some evidence. The following factors suggest that the three texts are different: lengths; considerable differences in detail (the reason, according to Hayashiya, that the Korean edition states that T147 and T148 are different texts). However, Hayashiya argues that T146, T147, and T148 are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them arose in the transmission processes. He points out as a clue the comment on the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in Sengyou mentioned above, according to which Daoan held that the text was excerpted from the Abhidharma 安公云出阿毘曇. Although the text has been commonly classified as an independent alternate translation of the *Ekottarikagama, Hayashiya claims that, since Dao’an was involved in the translation work of the *Ekottarikagama, his word 出阿毘曇 indicates that the Shi meng jing 十夢經 that Dao’an saw was different from the *Ekottarikagama, if similar to some extent. Based on this assumption, Hayashiya compares the three texts and the corresponding part of the *Ekottarikagama in detail. Then, he points out that: 1) The structure of the story differs considerably between the *Ekottarikagama and the three texts; 2) When there is some sentence/passage in any of the three texts that seems to have been added afterwards, in most cases it is taken from the *Ekottarikagama; and 3) the vocabulary of these three texts and the *Ekottarikagama are largely similar. Accordingly, he claims that the three texts are fundamentally the same as each other, while differing from the *Ekottarikagama. Based on those observations, Hayashiya argues for the following scenario: the Shi meng jing 十夢經 was translated before the *Ekottarikagama and was referred to in the translation process of the *Ekottarikagama; during oral transmission, parts of the Shi meng jing 十夢經 were changed so much that correction and supplementation was required when the text was transcribed; the *Ekottarikagama was used as an important source for those works due to the similarity of the content; since the transcribing work was done separately in different places, perhaps due to the political condition of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, the three texts were produced, differing considerably in length and wording. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T146, T147, and T148 are the results of different modifications to the Shi meng jing, with reference to the *Ekottarikagama. Although none of these texts preserves the original Shi meng jing, Hayashiya thinks that T147 is likely to be closest to it. He also points out that the T148 is quoted in its entirety in the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which shows that the text was already in its present form by the Liang 梁 period. Given the above scenario , Sengyou was indeed right in treating Shewei Guowang shi meng jing, Bosini wang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi meng jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing as alternate titles of the Shi meng jing, rather than the titles of different texts. The ascription of T148 to Tanwulan, seen in KYL and the Taisho, was first given by LDSBJ. Hayashiya points out that this ascription cannot be correct, because any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been translated by Tanwulan, and because the style of the three texts in the Taisho is that of the W. Jin. Thus, the ascription to Tanwulan should be excised. Hayashiya adds that KYL is correct in including the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing (Shi meng jing) 舎衞國王夢見十事經(十夢經)from Dao’an’s catalogue, but incorrect in following LDSBJ by ascribing T148 to Tanwulan. Hayashiya ends by stating that the Shi meng jing in Dao’an’s catalogue should be listed again, while excising the ascription to Tanwulan. (In support of his claims about T146, T147, T148, and the Ekottarikagama, Hayashiya lists detailed differences and similarities between them at pages 676-680, stating that this is only part of the evidence he found in support of his views.) Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0146; 舍衛國王夢見十事經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Shi meng jing 十夢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in 1 juan, with the alternate titles Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經, Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經, and Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing 國王不黎先泥十夢經, and also with the comment “Lord [Dao] An says that this is taken from the Abhidharma” 安公云出阿毘曇. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing~不離先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang shi meng jing 國王十夢經 in the category of independent alternate translations 別品異譯 of the *Ekottarikāgama 增一阿含. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, records the same as Fajing. Thus, a text entitled Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing was certainly extant in the Sui period. Jingtai includes, also in the category of independent alternate translations of the *Ekottarikāgama, Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不黎先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang qi meng jing 國王七夢經, with a length of five sheets. Hayashiya points out that qi meng 七夢 in Guowang qi meng jing must be a scribal error for shi meng 十夢. DTNDL 内典錄 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 record the same. KYL lists the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing from Dao’an’s catalogue with the alternates titles Shi meng Shewei guowang shi meng jing 十夢經舎衞國王十夢經, and Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, separately from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不犁先尼~ that it ascribes to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya maintains that these two entries do not appear to be a simple case of repeat listing, because Zhisheng 智昇 also shows the lengths of the two titles, five sheets for the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing and four sheets for the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jin, and he clearly states that the two texts are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing must have been found by the time of KYL, and that it is apparently a different text from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing listed in the foregoing catalogues, since Fajing and Zhisheng judged that the new text was the Shi meng ming 十夢經 of Dao’an’s catalogue. In the Taishō, there exist the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 T146 categorized as anonymous, the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經 T147 with the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄, and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不犁先泥十夢經 T148 ascribed to Tanwulan. Hayashiya claims that, of these three, T148 must be the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing that existed since the Sui period, because the text refers to King Prasenajit 波斯匿王 as Bulixianni 不梨先泥, a transcription of the original word, Prasenajit/Pasenadi, and the text is just about four registers long, which is about five sheets, the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya also points out that the Taishō adds the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄 to T147 because the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions added the same to the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing [although the Taishō chose a different title to which to append this comment]. However, T147 is not included in any of the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 included in KYL is T146, because of T146 and T147, T147 is only two and a half registers long, while KYL records the length of the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing as four sheets. This shows that, Hayashiya points out, T147 was rediscovered at some point after KYL. The existence of the three texts suggests the possibility that the titles that Sengyou thought referred to one and the same text － Shewei guowang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing －were actually the titles of three different texts. Thus, Hayashiya stated, it is necessary to examine the style and content of each of the three extant texts to see if they are genuinely different. He asserts that all of them clearly show the characteristics of the W. Jin period or earlier. Yet, he claims that it is not easy to determine whether those texts were different from the outset, or are the variations of the same text, as both possibilities are supported by some evidence. The following factors suggest that the three texts are different: lengths; considerable differences in detail (the reason, according to Hayashiya, that the Korean edition states that T147 and T148 are different texts). However, Hayashiya argues that T146, T147, and T148 are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them arose in the transmission processes. He points out as a clue the comment on the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in Sengyou mentioned above, according to which Daoan held that the text was excerpted from the Abhidharma 安公云出阿毘曇. Although the text has been commonly classified as an independent alternate translation of the *Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya claims that, since Dao’an was involved in the translation work of the *Ekottarikāgama, his word 出阿毘曇 indicates that the Shi meng jing 十夢經 that Dao’an saw was different from the *Ekottarikāgama, if similar to some extent. Based on this assumption, Hayashiya compares the three texts and the corresponding part of the *Ekottarikāgama in detail. Then, he points out that: 1) The structure of the story differs considerably between the *Ekottarikāgama and the three texts; 2) When there is some sentence/passage in any of the three texts that seems to have been added afterwards, in most cases it is taken from the *Ekottarikāgama; and 3) the vocabulary of these three texts and the *Ekottarikāgama are largely similar. Accordingly, he claims that the three texts are fundamentally the same as each other, while differing from the *Ekottarikāgama. Based on those observations, Hayashiya argues for the following scenario: the Shi meng jing 十夢經 was translated before the *Ekottarikāgama and was referred to in the translation process of the *Ekottarikāgama; during oral transmission, parts of the Shi meng jing 十夢經 were changed so much that correction and supplementation was required when the text was transcribed; the *Ekottarikāgama was used as an important source for those works due to the similarity of the content; since the transcribing work was done separately in different places, perhaps due to the political condition of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, the three texts were produced, differing considerably in length and wording. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T146, T147, and T148 are the results of different modifications to the Shi meng jing, with reference to the *Ekottarikāgama. Although none of these texts preserves the original Shi meng jing, Hayashiya thinks that T147 is likely to be closest to it. He also points out that the T148 is quoted in its entirety in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which shows that the text was already in its present form by the Liang 梁 period. Given the above scenario , Sengyou was indeed right in treating Shewei Guowang shi meng jing, Bosini wang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi meng jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing as alternate titles of the Shi meng jing, rather than the titles of different texts. The ascription of T148 to Tanwulan, seen in KYL and the Taishō, was first given by LDSBJ. Hayashiya points out that this ascription cannot be correct, because any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been translated by Tanwulan, and because the style of the three texts in the Taishō is that of the W. Jin. Thus, the ascription to Tanwulan should be excised. Hayashiya adds that KYL is correct in including the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing (Shi meng jing) 舎衞國王夢見十事經（十夢經）from Dao’an’s catalogue, but incorrect in following LDSBJ by ascribing T148 to Tanwulan. Hayashiya ends by stating that the Shi meng jing in Dao’an’s catalogue should be listed again, while excising the ascription to Tanwulan. (In support of his claims about T146, T147, T148, and the Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya lists detailed differences and similarities between them at pages 676-680, stating that this is only part of the evidence he found in support of his views.) |
673-683 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Shi meng jing 十夢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in 1 juan, with the alternate titles Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經, Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經, and Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing 國王不黎先泥十夢經, and also with the comment “Lord [Dao] An says that this is taken from the Abhidharma” 安公云出阿毘曇. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing~不離先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang shi meng jing 國王十夢經 in the category of independent alternate translations 別品異譯 of the *Ekottarikagama 增一阿含. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, records the same as Fajing. Thus, a text entitled Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing was certainly extant in the Sui period. Jingtai includes, also in the category of independent alternate translations of the *Ekottarikagama, Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不黎先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang qi meng jing 國王七夢經, with a length of five sheets. Hayashiya points out that qi meng 七夢 in Guowang qi meng jing must be a scribal error for shi meng 十夢. DTNDL 内典錄 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 record the same. KYL lists the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing from Dao’an’s catalogue with the alternates titles Shi meng Shewei guowang shi meng jing 十夢經舎衞國王十夢經, and Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, separately from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不犁先尼~ that it ascribes to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya maintains that these two entries do not appear to be a simple case of repeat listing, because Zhisheng 智昇 also shows the lengths of the two titles, five sheets for the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing and four sheets for the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jin, and he clearly states that the two texts are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing must have been found by the time of KYL, and that it is apparently a different text from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing listed in the foregoing catalogues, since Fajing and Zhisheng judged that the new text was the Shi meng ming 十夢經 of Dao’an’s catalogue. In the Taisho, there exist the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 T146 categorized as anonymous, the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經 T147 with the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄, and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不犁先泥十夢經 T148 ascribed to Tanwulan. Hayashiya claims that, of these three, T148 must be the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing that existed since the Sui period, because the text refers to King Prasenajit 波斯匿王 as Bulixianni 不梨先泥, a transcription of the original word, Prasenajit/Pasenadi, and the text is just about four registers long, which is about five sheets, the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya also points out that the Taisho adds the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄 to T147 because the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions added the same to the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing [although the Taisho chose a different title to which to append this comment]. However, T147 is not included in any of the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 included in KYL is T146, because of T146 and T147, T147 is only two and a half registers long, while KYL records the length of the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing as four sheets. This shows that, Hayashiya points out, T147 was rediscovered at some point after KYL. The existence of the three texts suggests the possibility that the titles that Sengyou thought referred to one and the same text - Shewei guowang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing -were actually the titles of three different texts. Thus, Hayashiya stated, it is necessary to examine the style and content of each of the three extant texts to see if they are genuinely different. He asserts that all of them clearly show the characteristics of the W. Jin period or earlier. Yet, he claims that it is not easy to determine whether those texts were different from the outset, or are the variations of the same text, as both possibilities are supported by some evidence. The following factors suggest that the three texts are different: lengths; considerable differences in detail (the reason, according to Hayashiya, that the Korean edition states that T147 and T148 are different texts). However, Hayashiya argues that T146, T147, and T148 are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them arose in the transmission processes. He points out as a clue the comment on the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in Sengyou mentioned above, according to which Daoan held that the text was excerpted from the Abhidharma 安公云出阿毘曇. Although the text has been commonly classified as an independent alternate translation of the *Ekottarikagama, Hayashiya claims that, since Dao’an was involved in the translation work of the *Ekottarikagama, his word 出阿毘曇 indicates that the Shi meng jing 十夢經 that Dao’an saw was different from the *Ekottarikagama, if similar to some extent. Based on this assumption, Hayashiya compares the three texts and the corresponding part of the *Ekottarikagama in detail. Then, he points out that: 1) The structure of the story differs considerably between the *Ekottarikagama and the three texts; 2) When there is some sentence/passage in any of the three texts that seems to have been added afterwards, in most cases it is taken from the *Ekottarikagama; and 3) the vocabulary of these three texts and the *Ekottarikagama are largely similar. Accordingly, he claims that the three texts are fundamentally the same as each other, while differing from the *Ekottarikagama. Based on those observations, Hayashiya argues for the following scenario: the Shi meng jing 十夢經 was translated before the *Ekottarikagama and was referred to in the translation process of the *Ekottarikagama; during oral transmission, parts of the Shi meng jing 十夢經 were changed so much that correction and supplementation was required when the text was transcribed; the *Ekottarikagama was used as an important source for those works due to the similarity of the content; since the transcribing work was done separately in different places, perhaps due to the political condition of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, the three texts were produced, differing considerably in length and wording. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T146, T147, and T148 are the results of different modifications to the Shi meng jing, with reference to the *Ekottarikagama. Although none of these texts preserves the original Shi meng jing, Hayashiya thinks that T147 is likely to be closest to it. He also points out that the T148 is quoted in its entirety in the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which shows that the text was already in its present form by the Liang 梁 period. Given the above scenario , Sengyou was indeed right in treating Shewei Guowang shi meng jing, Bosini wang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi meng jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing as alternate titles of the Shi meng jing, rather than the titles of different texts. The ascription of T148 to Tanwulan, seen in KYL and the Taisho, was first given by LDSBJ. Hayashiya points out that this ascription cannot be correct, because any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been translated by Tanwulan, and because the style of the three texts in the Taisho is that of the W. Jin. Thus, the ascription to Tanwulan should be excised. Hayashiya adds that KYL is correct in including the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing (Shi meng jing) 舎衞國王夢見十事經(十夢經)from Dao’an’s catalogue, but incorrect in following LDSBJ by ascribing T148 to Tanwulan. Hayashiya ends by stating that the Shi meng jing in Dao’an’s catalogue should be listed again, while excising the ascription to Tanwulan. (In support of his claims about T146, T147, T148, and the Ekottarikagama, Hayashiya lists detailed differences and similarities between them at pages 676-680, stating that this is only part of the evidence he found in support of his views.) Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0147; 佛說舍衛國王十夢經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Shi meng jing 十夢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in 1 juan, with the alternate titles Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經, Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經, and Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing 國王不黎先泥十夢經, and also with the comment “Lord [Dao] An says that this is taken from the Abhidharma” 安公云出阿毘曇. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou.. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing~不離先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang shi meng jing 國王十夢經 in the category of independent alternate translations 別品異譯 of the *Ekottarikāgama 增一阿含. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, records the same as Fajing. Thus, a text entitled Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing was certainly extant in the Sui period. Jingtai includes, also in the category of independent alternate translations of the *Ekottarikāgama, Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不黎先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang qi meng jing 國王七夢經, with a length of five sheets. Hayashiya points out that qi meng 七夢 in Guowang qi meng jing must be a scribal error for shi meng 十夢. DTNDL 内典錄 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 record the same. KYL lists the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing from Dao’an’s catalogue with the alternates titles Shi meng Shewei guowang shi meng jing 十夢經舎衞國王十夢經, and Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, separately from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不犁先尼~ that it ascribes to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya maintains that these two entries do not appear to be a simple case of repeat listing, because Zhisheng 智昇 also shows the lengths of the two titles, five sheets for the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing and four sheets for the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jin, and he clearly states that the two texts are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing must have been found by the time of KYL, and that it is apparently a different text from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing listed in the foregoing catalogues, since Fajing and Zhisheng judged that the new text was the Shi meng ming 十夢經 of Dao’an’s catalogue. In the Taishō, there exist the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 T146 categorized as anonymous, the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經 T147 with the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄, and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不犁先泥十夢經 T148 ascribed to Tanwulan. Hayashiya claims that, of these three, T148 must be the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing that existed since the Sui period, because the text refers to King Prasenajit 波斯匿王 as Bulixianni 不梨先泥, a transcription of the original word, Prasenajit/Pasenadi, and the text is just about four registers long, which is about five sheets, the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya also points out that the Taishō adds the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄 to T147 because the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions added the same to the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing [although the Taishō chose a different title to which to append this comment]. However, T147 is not included in any of the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 included in KYL is T146, because of T146 and T147, T147 is only two and a half registers long, while KYL records the length of the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing as four sheets. This shows that, Hayashiya points out, T147 was rediscovered at some point after KYL. The existence of the three texts suggests the possibility that the titles that Sengyou thought referred to one and the same text － Shewei guowang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing －were actually the titles of three different texts. Thus, Hayashiya stated, it is necessary to examine the style and content of each of the three extant texts to see if they are genuinely different. He asserts that all of them clearly show the characteristics of the W. Jin period or earlier. Yet, he claims that it is not easy to determine whether those texts were different from the outset, or are the variations of the same text, as both possibilities are supported by some evidence. The following factors suggest that the three texts are different: lengths; considerable differences in detail (the reason, according to Hayashiya, that the Korean edition states that T147 and T148 are different texts). However, Hayashiya argues that T146, T147, and T148 are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them arose in the transmission processes. He points out as a clue the comment on the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in Sengyou mentioned above, according to which Dao'an held that the text was excerpted from the Abhidharma 安公云出阿毘曇. Although the text has been commonly classified as an independent alternate translation of the *Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya claims that, since Dao’an was involved in the translation work of the *Ekottarikāgama, his word 出阿毘曇 indicates that the Shi meng jing 十夢經 that Dao’an saw was different from the *Ekottarikāgama, if similar to some extent. Based on this assumption, Hayashiya compares the three texts and the corresponding part of the *Ekottarikāgama in detail. Then, he points out that: 1) The structure of the story differs considerably between the *Ekottarikāgama and the three texts; 2) When there is some sentence/passage in any of the three texts that seems to have been added afterwards, in most cases it is taken from the *Ekottarikāgama; and 3) the vocabulary of these three texts and the *Ekottarikāgama are largely similar. Accordingly, he claims that the three texts are fundamentally the same as each other, while differing from the *Ekottarikāgama. Based on those observations, Hayashiya argues for the following scenario: the Shi meng jing 十夢經 was translated before the *Ekottarikāgama and was referred to in the translation process of the *Ekottarikāgama; during oral transmission, parts of the Shi meng jing 十夢經 were changed so much that correction and supplementation was required when the text was transcribed; the *Ekottarikāgama was used as an important source for those works due to the similarity of the content; since the transcribing work was done separately in different places, perhaps due to the political condition of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, the three texts were produced, differing considerably in length and wording. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T146, T147, and T148 are the results of different modifications to the Shi meng jing, with reference to the *Ekottarikāgama. Although none of these texts preserves the original Shi meng jing, Hayashiya thinks that T147 is likely to be closest to it. He also points out that the T148 is quoted in its entirety in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which shows that the text was already in its present form by the Liang 梁 period. Given the above scenario , Sengyou was indeed right in treating Shewei Guowang shi meng jing, Bosini wang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi meng jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing as alternate titles of the Shi meng jing, rather than the titles of different texts. The ascription of T148 to Tanwulan, seen in KYL and the Taishō, was first given by LDSBJ. Hayashiya points out that this ascription cannot be correct, because any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been translated by Tanwulan, and because the style of the three texts in the Taishō is that of the W. Jin. Thus, the ascription to Tanwulan should be excised. Hayashiya adds that KYL is correct in including the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing (Shi meng jing) 舎衞國王夢見十事經（十夢經）from Dao’an’s catalogue, but incorrect in following LDSBJ by ascribing T148 to Tanwulan. Hayashiya ends by stating that the Shi meng jing in Dao’an’s catalogue should be listed again, while excising the ascription to Tanwulan. (In support of his claims about T146, T147, T148, and the Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya lists detailed differences and similarities between them at pages 676-680, stating that this is only part of the evidence he found in support of his views.) |
673-683 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Shi meng jing 十夢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in 1 juan, with the alternate titles Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經, Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經, and Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing 國王不黎先泥十夢經, and also with the comment “Lord [Dao] An says that this is taken from the Abhidharma” 安公云出阿毘曇. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou.. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing~不離先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang shi meng jing 國王十夢經 in the category of independent alternate translations 別品異譯 of the *Ekottarikagama 增一阿含. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, records the same as Fajing. Thus, a text entitled Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing was certainly extant in the Sui period. Jingtai includes, also in the category of independent alternate translations of the *Ekottarikagama, Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不黎先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang qi meng jing 國王七夢經, with a length of five sheets. Hayashiya points out that qi meng 七夢 in Guowang qi meng jing must be a scribal error for shi meng 十夢. DTNDL 内典錄 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 record the same. KYL lists the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing from Dao’an’s catalogue with the alternates titles Shi meng Shewei guowang shi meng jing 十夢經舎衞國王十夢經, and Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, separately from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不犁先尼~ that it ascribes to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya maintains that these two entries do not appear to be a simple case of repeat listing, because Zhisheng 智昇 also shows the lengths of the two titles, five sheets for the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing and four sheets for the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jin, and he clearly states that the two texts are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing must have been found by the time of KYL, and that it is apparently a different text from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing listed in the foregoing catalogues, since Fajing and Zhisheng judged that the new text was the Shi meng ming 十夢經 of Dao’an’s catalogue. In the Taisho, there exist the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 T146 categorized as anonymous, the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經 T147 with the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄, and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不犁先泥十夢經 T148 ascribed to Tanwulan. Hayashiya claims that, of these three, T148 must be the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing that existed since the Sui period, because the text refers to King Prasenajit 波斯匿王 as Bulixianni 不梨先泥, a transcription of the original word, Prasenajit/Pasenadi, and the text is just about four registers long, which is about five sheets, the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya also points out that the Taisho adds the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄 to T147 because the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions added the same to the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing [although the Taisho chose a different title to which to append this comment]. However, T147 is not included in any of the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 included in KYL is T146, because of T146 and T147, T147 is only two and a half registers long, while KYL records the length of the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing as four sheets. This shows that, Hayashiya points out, T147 was rediscovered at some point after KYL. The existence of the three texts suggests the possibility that the titles that Sengyou thought referred to one and the same text - Shewei guowang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing -were actually the titles of three different texts. Thus, Hayashiya stated, it is necessary to examine the style and content of each of the three extant texts to see if they are genuinely different. He asserts that all of them clearly show the characteristics of the W. Jin period or earlier. Yet, he claims that it is not easy to determine whether those texts were different from the outset, or are the variations of the same text, as both possibilities are supported by some evidence. The following factors suggest that the three texts are different: lengths; considerable differences in detail (the reason, according to Hayashiya, that the Korean edition states that T147 and T148 are different texts). However, Hayashiya argues that T146, T147, and T148 are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them arose in the transmission processes. He points out as a clue the comment on the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in Sengyou mentioned above, according to which Dao'an held that the text was excerpted from the Abhidharma 安公云出阿毘曇. Although the text has been commonly classified as an independent alternate translation of the *Ekottarikagama, Hayashiya claims that, since Dao’an was involved in the translation work of the *Ekottarikagama, his word 出阿毘曇 indicates that the Shi meng jing 十夢經 that Dao’an saw was different from the *Ekottarikagama, if similar to some extent. Based on this assumption, Hayashiya compares the three texts and the corresponding part of the *Ekottarikagama in detail. Then, he points out that: 1) The structure of the story differs considerably between the *Ekottarikagama and the three texts; 2) When there is some sentence/passage in any of the three texts that seems to have been added afterwards, in most cases it is taken from the *Ekottarikagama; and 3) the vocabulary of these three texts and the *Ekottarikagama are largely similar. Accordingly, he claims that the three texts are fundamentally the same as each other, while differing from the *Ekottarikagama. Based on those observations, Hayashiya argues for the following scenario: the Shi meng jing 十夢經 was translated before the *Ekottarikagama and was referred to in the translation process of the *Ekottarikagama; during oral transmission, parts of the Shi meng jing 十夢經 were changed so much that correction and supplementation was required when the text was transcribed; the *Ekottarikagama was used as an important source for those works due to the similarity of the content; since the transcribing work was done separately in different places, perhaps due to the political condition of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, the three texts were produced, differing considerably in length and wording. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T146, T147, and T148 are the results of different modifications to the Shi meng jing, with reference to the *Ekottarikagama. Although none of these texts preserves the original Shi meng jing, Hayashiya thinks that T147 is likely to be closest to it. He also points out that the T148 is quoted in its entirety in the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which shows that the text was already in its present form by the Liang 梁 period. Given the above scenario , Sengyou was indeed right in treating Shewei Guowang shi meng jing, Bosini wang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi meng jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing as alternate titles of the Shi meng jing, rather than the titles of different texts. The ascription of T148 to Tanwulan, seen in KYL and the Taisho, was first given by LDSBJ. Hayashiya points out that this ascription cannot be correct, because any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been translated by Tanwulan, and because the style of the three texts in the Taisho is that of the W. Jin. Thus, the ascription to Tanwulan should be excised. Hayashiya adds that KYL is correct in including the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing (Shi meng jing) 舎衞國王夢見十事經(十夢經)from Dao’an’s catalogue, but incorrect in following LDSBJ by ascribing T148 to Tanwulan. Hayashiya ends by stating that the Shi meng jing in Dao’an’s catalogue should be listed again, while excising the ascription to Tanwulan. (In support of his claims about T146, T147, T148, and the Ekottarikagama, Hayashiya lists detailed differences and similarities between them at pages 676-680, stating that this is only part of the evidence he found in support of his views.) Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0148; 國王不梨先泥十夢經 |
|
CSZJJ 出三藏記集 shows a Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 in two juan. Hayashiya argues that this was because the Za jing sishisi jing 雑經四十四篇 was included in it, and if it was not, the Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 should be one juan. |
407 n.7 |
CSZJJ 出三藏記集 shows a Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 in two juan. Hayashiya argues that this was because the Za jing sishisi jing 雑經四十四篇 was included in it, and if it was not, the Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 should be one juan. An Shigao, 安世高 T0150A; 七處三觀經 |
Hayashiya points out that T154 contains quite a few texts whose vocabulary and tone are different from the majority group, which share the same style. The Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経 T154(55) is one of those stylistically discrepant texts. Hayashiya suggests that the Fo shuo piyu jing was not yet part of the Sheng jing at the time of Fajing, which explains why Fajing did not mention the Sheng jing in his entry on the Shouda jing. Thus, the Fo shuo piyu jing, at least, should not be considered as translated by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, because its vocabulary and tone are different form the major part of the Sheng jing T154 生經. Accordingly, Hayashiya concludes that although the Shouda jing 首達經 and the Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩經 that contains it are now in turn part of the Shengjing 生經, which is shown in the Taishō as by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, they should be recorded separately as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
925-928 |
Hayashiya points out that T154 contains quite a few texts whose vocabulary and tone are different from the majority group, which share the same style. The Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経 T154(55) is one of those stylistically discrepant texts. Hayashiya suggests that the Fo shuo piyu jing was not yet part of the Sheng jing at the time of Fajing, which explains why Fajing did not mention the Sheng jing in his entry on the Shouda jing. Thus, the Fo shuo piyu jing, at least, should not be considered as translated by Dharmaraksa 竺法護, because its vocabulary and tone are different form the major part of the Sheng jing T154 生經. Accordingly, Hayashiya concludes that although the Shouda jing 首達經 and the Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩經 that contains it are now in turn part of the Shengjing 生經, which is shown in the Taisho as by Dharmaraksa 竺法護, they should be recorded separately as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. T0154; 生經 T154(55); Piyu jing 譬喩經; Shouda jing 首達經 | |
|
Hayashiya maintains that the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 T161 should be identified with the text of the same title listed in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Judging from its vocabulary and style, T161 is highly likely to have been produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period. In addition, the length of the text is consistent with the length of the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 shown in Jingtai 靜泰錄 and some other catalogues. Hayashiya also discusses some misunderstandings about this text in some catalogues. For example, from Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu onward, it was commonly claimed that 長壽王經 T161 was an alternate translation of the Changshou wang benqi jing 長壽王本起經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26(72). However, the two are clearly different texts, and cannot be alternate translations of the same text. Hayashiya claims that the view that regards the two as alternate translations probably arose due to the partial similarities of the stories told in the two texts. According to Hayashiya, the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 T161 has no alternate translations, since none can be found in such sources as the four Āgamas 四阿含, the Udānavarga 出曜經 T212, the Liu di ji jing 六度集經 T152, the Si fen lü 四分律 and so on. There is another Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 included in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Sengyou made it clear that this text was different from the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 in Dao'an's list. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and most of catalogues that came after that classified it as a break-away sutra 別生經 from the Udānavarga 出曜經 T212, without giving much detail. |
506-511 |
Hayashiya maintains that the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 T161 should be identified with the text of the same title listed in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Judging from its vocabulary and style, T161 is highly likely to have been produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period. In addition, the length of the text is consistent with the length of the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 shown in Jingtai 靜泰錄 and some other catalogues. Hayashiya also discusses some misunderstandings about this text in some catalogues. For example, from Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu onward, it was commonly claimed that 長壽王經 T161 was an alternate translation of the Changshou wang benqi jing 長壽王本起經 in the Madhyamagama 中阿含 T26(72). However, the two are clearly different texts, and cannot be alternate translations of the same text. Hayashiya claims that the view that regards the two as alternate translations probably arose due to the partial similarities of the stories told in the two texts. According to Hayashiya, the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 T161 has no alternate translations, since none can be found in such sources as the four Agamas 四阿含, the Udanavarga 出曜經 T212, the Liu di ji jing 六度集經 T152, the Si fen lu 四分律 and so on. There is another Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 included in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Sengyou made it clear that this text was different from the Changshou wang jing 長壽王經 in Dao'an's list. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and most of catalogues that came after that classified it as a break-away sutra 別生經 from the Udanavarga 出曜經 T212, without giving much detail. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0161; 長壽王經 |
|
The Yi shen shi e hu jing 以身施餓虎經 was initially in Dao'an's Zhu jing lu 安公注經錄, but Sengyou 僧祐 included in his recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. It was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu did not list this text, apparently because Fajing thought that this text was the same as the Pusa tou shen e he qi ta yinyuan jing 菩薩投身餓虎起塔因緣經, which he classifies as an anonymous scripture. This is probably because the Pusa tou shen... is not listed in Dao'an's list, and the title is very similar to that of the Yi shen shi... KYL 開元錄 also considers the two to be the same, attributing the translation to Fasheng 法盛 in the N. Liang 北涼 period. LDSBJ 三寶記 does not list either text. However, it is chronologically impossible that a text translated by Fasheng under the N. Liang should be included in Dao'an's list. Hayashiya claims that either Yi shen shi... and Pusa tou shen... must be two different texts, and/or the attribution [of at least one] to Fasheng must be wrong. The text of Pousa tou shen... is now extant, as the Pusa tou shen yi e hu qi ta yinyuan jing 菩薩投身飴餓虎起塔因縁經 T172, which bears a postscript. The reason that KYL claims that this text was translated by Fasheng is that the name Fasheng appears in the postscript. Hayashiya points out that this reason is unconvincing, for several reasons: for example, it is not clear if the word fasheng there refers to the person Fasheng 法盛 or to a situation in which "dharma prospers". Also, if Fasheng translated the text, it is odd that GSZ 高僧傳 does not mention it in its section on Fasheng. Moreover, the vocabulary and tone of the text is most likely to be of the W. Jin 西晋 period. It does start with 如是我聞, which appears in the E. Jin 東晋 period and thereafter, but many other words used in the text shows the characteristics of W. Jin 西晋, and 如是我聞 should be considered as a later alteration. Given that the text was composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period, it cannot be Fasheng’s work. Thus, Hayashiya concludes, KYL’s attribution of the translation to Fasheng is incorrect. As for the relation between Yi shen shi... and the Pusa tou shen..., Hayashiya maintains that the two are the same text. In the text of the Pusa tou shen... T172, the phrase "qi ta yinyuan" 起塔因縁 is not used, while there are words and parts that do suit the title Yi shen shi e hu jing 以身施餓虎經. The phrase "qi ta yinyuan" appears only in the postscript. This suggests that the title was changed after the postscript added. Hence, the two titles are likely to refer to the same text. Thus, Hayashiya contends, Yi shen shi... and Pusa tou shen... are indeed the same text, but the former should have been used as the title instead of the latter. This text is not Fasheng’s translation, and should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
781-786 |
The Yi shen shi e hu jing 以身施餓虎經 was initially in Dao'an's Zhu jing lu 安公注經錄, but Sengyou 僧祐 included in his recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. It was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu did not list this text, apparently because Fajing thought that this text was the same as the Pusa tou shen e he qi ta yinyuan jing 菩薩投身餓虎起塔因緣經, which he classifies as an anonymous scripture. This is probably because the Pusa tou shen... is not listed in Dao'an's list, and the title is very similar to that of the Yi shen shi... KYL 開元錄 also considers the two to be the same, attributing the translation to Fasheng 法盛 in the N. Liang 北涼 period. LDSBJ 三寶記 does not list either text. However, it is chronologically impossible that a text translated by Fasheng under the N. Liang should be included in Dao'an's list. Hayashiya claims that either Yi shen shi... and Pusa tou shen... must be two different texts, and/or the attribution [of at least one] to Fasheng must be wrong. The text of Pousa tou shen... is now extant, as the Pusa tou shen yi e hu qi ta yinyuan jing 菩薩投身飴餓虎起塔因縁經 T172, which bears a postscript. The reason that KYL claims that this text was translated by Fasheng is that the name Fasheng appears in the postscript. Hayashiya points out that this reason is unconvincing, for several reasons: for example, it is not clear if the word fasheng there refers to the person Fasheng 法盛 or to a situation in which "dharma prospers". Also, if Fasheng translated the text, it is odd that GSZ 高僧傳 does not mention it in its section on Fasheng. Moreover, the vocabulary and tone of the text is most likely to be of the W. Jin 西晋 period. It does start with 如是我聞, which appears in the E. Jin 東晋 period and thereafter, but many other words used in the text shows the characteristics of W. Jin 西晋, and 如是我聞 should be considered as a later alteration. Given that the text was composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period, it cannot be Fasheng’s work. Thus, Hayashiya concludes, KYL’s attribution of the translation to Fasheng is incorrect. As for the relation between Yi shen shi... and the Pusa tou shen..., Hayashiya maintains that the two are the same text. In the text of the Pusa tou shen... T172, the phrase "qi ta yinyuan" 起塔因縁 is not used, while there are words and parts that do suit the title Yi shen shi e hu jing 以身施餓虎經. The phrase "qi ta yinyuan" appears only in the postscript. This suggests that the title was changed after the postscript added. Hence, the two titles are likely to refer to the same text. Thus, Hayashiya contends, Yi shen shi... and Pusa tou shen... are indeed the same text, but the former should have been used as the title instead of the latter. This text is not Fasheng’s translation, and should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0172; 菩薩投身飴餓虎起塔因緣經; Yi shen shi e hu jing 以身施餓虎經; Pusa tou shen e hu qi ta yinyuan jing 菩薩投身餓虎起塔因緣經 |
|
A Jiu se lu jing 九色鹿經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. This text was a break-away sutra 別生經 from the Liu du jing jing 六度集經 T152, as recorded in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄. Jingtai does not show the length of the text, since it is classified as an abbreviated break-away sutra. Hence it is not known if the text was still extant at the time of Jingtai. LDSBJ 三寶記 does not mention this text at all. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 lists the Jiu se lu jing as three sheets 紙 long and translated by Zhi Qian. This record of the length shows that the text had been extant at least down to the Tang 唐 period. KYL 開元錄 followed DZKZM and listed the Jiu se lu jing as Zhi Qian’s translation. KYL omits break-away sutras most of the time, but included this text because this version of the Jiu se lu jing was different from the that included in T152. Still, since Fajing, Yancong and Jingtai classified the Jiu se lu jing as a break-away sutra, KYL made a separate entry for the Jiu se lu jing as a break-away sutra, different from the extant version of Jiu se lu jing. The text of the Jiu se lu jing has survived as T181, and there are two versions: the one came from the Korean version of the canon and the other from the Ming version. They differ only in minor details, which should be due to errors made during the copying or transmitting process. It is not the case that there were initially two different Jiu se lu jing. Judging from the vocabulary and style, the Jiu se lu jing was composed in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period. It is not Kang Senghui's translation, because while Kang Senghui uses transliterated words 音訳語 frequently, there are very few of them in the Jiu se lu jing. It is difficult to determine if the text is Zhi Qian’s translation, since the text features none of the introductory or closing words that are customary in sutras, and there are hardly any words in the text which can be compared to other translation works of Zhi Qian. Further, the source of the ascription to Zhi Qian is the unreliable "Dharmottara catalogue" 達摩欝多羅錄. Hayashiya states that if the source had been the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, it would have been an option to regard the Jiu se lu jing as Zhi Qian’s translation. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the best option is to regard the Jiu se lu jing T181 as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period, pending further research on terminology and style. |
873-875 |
A Jiu se lu jing 九色鹿經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. This text was a break-away sutra 別生經 from the Liu du jing jing 六度集經 T152, as recorded in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄. Jingtai does not show the length of the text, since it is classified as an abbreviated break-away sutra. Hence it is not known if the text was still extant at the time of Jingtai. LDSBJ 三寶記 does not mention this text at all. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 lists the Jiu se lu jing as three sheets 紙 long and translated by Zhi Qian. This record of the length shows that the text had been extant at least down to the Tang 唐 period. KYL 開元錄 followed DZKZM and listed the Jiu se lu jing as Zhi Qian’s translation. KYL omits break-away sutras most of the time, but included this text because this version of the Jiu se lu jing was different from the that included in T152. Still, since Fajing, Yancong and Jingtai classified the Jiu se lu jing as a break-away sutra, KYL made a separate entry for the Jiu se lu jing as a break-away sutra, different from the extant version of Jiu se lu jing. The text of the Jiu se lu jing has survived as T181, and there are two versions: the one came from the Korean version of the canon and the other from the Ming version. They differ only in minor details, which should be due to errors made during the copying or transmitting process. It is not the case that there were initially two different Jiu se lu jing. Judging from the vocabulary and style, the Jiu se lu jing was composed in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period. It is not Kang Senghui's translation, because while Kang Senghui uses transliterated words 音訳語 frequently, there are very few of them in the Jiu se lu jing. It is difficult to determine if the text is Zhi Qian’s translation, since the text features none of the introductory or closing words that are customary in sutras, and there are hardly any words in the text which can be compared to other translation works of Zhi Qian. Further, the source of the ascription to Zhi Qian is the unreliable "Dharmottara catalogue" 達摩欝多羅錄. Hayashiya states that if the source had been the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, it would have been an option to regard the Jiu se lu jing as Zhi Qian’s translation. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the best option is to regard the Jiu se lu jing T181 as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period, pending further research on terminology and style. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0181; 九色鹿經 |
|
In the course of examining other texts ascribed to Faju 法炬 by various catalogues, Hayashiya makes reference to these two texts as a benchmark. In so doing, he states that he regards the style of these two texts as consistent with one another [MR: though it is not clear that this is sufficient for us to take the next step and state that this means that they are indeed by Faju, and should not be taken as implying that it is Hayashiya's view that the ascription of the two texts to Faju is correct]. |
940-947 |
In the course of examining other texts ascribed to Faju 法炬 by various catalogues, Hayashiya makes reference to these two texts as a benchmark. In so doing, he states that he regards the style of these two texts as consistent with one another [MR: though it is not clear that this is sufficient for us to take the next step and state that this means that they are indeed by Faju, and should not be taken as implying that it is Hayashiya's view that the ascription of the two texts to Faju is correct]. T0211; 法句譬喻經 T0683; 佛說諸德福田經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: LDSBJ 三寶記 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 T273 and maintains this text cannot be the one listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録, since it includes many words that came to be used after the time of Kumārajīva, and those that belong to the system of the tathāgatagarbha tradition. Hayashiya concludes that the Jingang sanmei jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country is still lost, and must be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. The surviving T273, the one Zhisheng found, is a different text composed around the Liang Chen 梁陳 period, translated by some anonymous translators. |
1077-1079 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 is listed in this catalogue and was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 as an anonymous scripture. The text was still lost at the time of Yancong. LDSBJ 三寶記 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: LDSBJ classifies the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period. Hayashiya claims that this date of composition is incorrect and it is probably the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. DZKZM writes that this text is an anonymous scripture of the N. Liang 北梁 period, but this Liang 梁 is clearly a misspelling of Liang 涼. KYL 開元錄: KYL also regards the Jingang sanmei jing as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period. Adding to this, it also lists the Jingang sanmei jing as a freestanding extant Mahayana text, with a length of one scroll 巻 or two scrolls. This ambiguity of the volume indicates the fact that Zhisheng 智昇 newly found that the text that had two scrolls, while the former catalogues recorded it as one scroll. Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 T273 and maintains this text cannot be the one listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録, since it includes many words that came to be used after the time of Kumarajiva, and those that belong to the system of the tathagatagarbha tradition. Hayashiya concludes that the Jingang sanmei jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country is still lost, and must be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. The surviving T273, the one Zhisheng found, is a different text composed around the Liang Chen 梁陳 period, translated by some anonymous translators. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0273; 金剛三昧經 |
|
Hayashiya argues that the ascription of this text [meaning T330] to Bo Fazu is incorrect, because based upon a baseless ascription first found in LDSBJ and KYL. T330 should in fact be identical with the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經, which is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録, but not in Fajing 法經録 and the Renshou lu 仁壽録. The two did not include it probably because the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 was rightly regarded as the same as the present title, the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. This identification was initially made by Sengyou 僧祐, who includes the Zhangzhe weishi suowen pusa xiuxing jing 長者威施所問菩薩修行經 in his list of anonymous and miscellaneous scriptures 失譯雑經録, stating that it is also called Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經 or Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. Thus, LDSBJ and KYL created a ghost text by adding back in the alternate title (Hayashiya does not state why they ascribed T330 to Bo Fazu). |
493-496 |
Hayashiya argues that the ascription of this text [meaning T330] to Bo Fazu is incorrect, because based upon a baseless ascription first found in LDSBJ and KYL. T330 should in fact be identical with the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經, which is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録, but not in Fajing 法經録 and the Renshou lu 仁壽録. The two did not include it probably because the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 was rightly regarded as the same as the present title, the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. This identification was initially made by Sengyou 僧祐, who includes the Zhangzhe weishi suowen pusa xiuxing jing 長者威施所問菩薩修行經 in his list of anonymous and miscellaneous scriptures 失譯雑經録, stating that it is also called Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經 or Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. Thus, LDSBJ and KYL created a ghost text by adding back in the alternate title (Hayashiya does not state why they ascribed T330 to Bo Fazu). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0330; Zhangzhe weishi jing, 長者威勢經; Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經; 佛說菩薩修行經; Viradattapariprccha |
|
Hayashiya argues that the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 T344 and Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經 T343 should be treated as the same text, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. There are only minor differences between the two, which are easily explicable as the sort of variations that could easily occur when a memorized text containing words in a foreign language is written down on paper. Otherwise, Hayashiya asserts, it would be impossible to explain the similarity between the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 and the Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經. He further explains the most notable difference between the two, the names Hexiu and 和休 and Shuahu 刷護, as featured in the titles. According to him, the original word for both of these two words must be Sīha or Sīho, and Hexiu 和休 must originally have been Sixiu 私休. A Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures with a note saying that the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 is also called the Taizi Sixiu jing 太子私休經. This being the case, the difference between Sixiu 私休 and Shuahu 刷護 would be just a matter of the choice of characters in transcribing Sanskrit. Hayashiya points out that a graphic confusion between si 私 and he 和 can occur easily, as in 旃陀和利 in the 阿闍世王受決經, which Hayashiya suggests must originally have been 旃陀私利. The date of these texts, Hayashiya states, is clearly W. Jin 西晋, on stylistic grounds. T343 and T344, or the titles 太子和休經and 太子刷護經, were classified as different texts in a number of catalogues. Hayashiya points out that Sengyou 僧祐 listed the 太子刷護經 separately in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, because he did not see the content of the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 and did not notice the significance of 和休 and 私休. Fajing appears to have noticed the extreme similarity between the two texts, but because of the difference in title and Sengyou's 僧祐 influence, still listed both, with a note that they are the same. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 wrongly ascribed the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 to Zhi Qian 支謙 and the Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經 to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, but on no particular grounds. KYL 開元錄 is right in listing the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, but the title should have been Taizi Sixiu jing 太子私休經, and the entry ascribing a Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經 to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 should be removed. |
511-520 |
Hayashiya argues that the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 T344 and Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經 T343 should be treated as the same text, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. There are only minor differences between the two, which are easily explicable as the sort of variations that could easily occur when a memorized text containing words in a foreign language is written down on paper. Otherwise, Hayashiya asserts, it would be impossible to explain the similarity between the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 and the Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經. He further explains the most notable difference between the two, the names Hexiu and 和休 and Shuahu 刷護, as featured in the titles. According to him, the original word for both of these two words must be Siha or Siho, and Hexiu 和休 must originally have been Sixiu 私休. A Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures with a note saying that the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 is also called the Taizi Sixiu jing 太子私休經. This being the case, the difference between Sixiu 私休 and Shuahu 刷護 would be just a matter of the choice of characters in transcribing Sanskrit. Hayashiya points out that a graphic confusion between si 私 and he 和 can occur easily, as in 旃陀和利 in the 阿闍世王受決經, which Hayashiya suggests must originally have been 旃陀私利. The date of these texts, Hayashiya states, is clearly W. Jin 西晋, on stylistic grounds. T343 and T344, or the titles 太子和休經and 太子刷護經, were classified as different texts in a number of catalogues. Hayashiya points out that Sengyou 僧祐 listed the 太子刷護經 separately in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, because he did not see the content of the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 and did not notice the significance of 和休 and 私休. Fajing appears to have noticed the extreme similarity between the two texts, but because of the difference in title and Sengyou's 僧祐 influence, still listed both, with a note that they are the same. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 wrongly ascribed the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 to Zhi Qian 支謙 and the Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經 to Dharmaraksa 竺法護, but on no particular grounds. KYL 開元錄 is right in listing the Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, but the title should have been Taizi Sixiu jing 太子私休經, and the entry ascribing a Taizi Shuahu jing 太子刷護經 to Dharmaraksa 竺法護 should be removed. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0343; Taizi Sixiu jing 太子私休經; 佛說太子刷護經 T0344; Taizi Sixiu jing 太子私休經; 佛說太子和休經 |
|
Hayashiya notes that the DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 incorrectly ascribed a Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 to Zhi Qian 支謙. |
511-520 |
Hayashiya notes that the DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 incorrectly ascribed a Taizi Hexiu jing 太子和休經 to Zhi Qian 支謙. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0344; Taizi Sixiu jing 太子私休經; 佛說太子和休經 |
|
Judging from the translation style, this text 佛滅度後棺斂葬送經 T392 must have been translated in the W. Jin 西晋 era or earlier. According to Hayashiya, it is likely to have been translated in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 era. The text is the same as the Biqiu shi jing 比丘師經 or the Shi biqiu jing 師比丘經. Hence Fajing 法經録, the Renshou lu 仁壽録 and KYL 開元録 list only the title 佛滅度後棺斂葬送經, not 師比丘經. |
504-506 |
Judging from the translation style, this text 佛滅度後棺斂葬送經 T392 must have been translated in the W. Jin 西晋 era or earlier. According to Hayashiya, it is likely to have been translated in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 era. The text is the same as the Biqiu shi jing 比丘師經 or the Shi biqiu jing 師比丘經. Hence Fajing 法經録, the Renshou lu 仁壽録 and KYL 開元録 list only the title 佛滅度後棺斂葬送經, not 師比丘經. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0392; 佛滅度後棺斂葬送經 |
|
Hayashiya points out, following KYL 開元録, that in the Achawei jing 阿差末經 there is a phrase "晋言云無盡意" [surely referring to 阿差末者晉曰無盡意 T403:13.586b27, MR], and the alternative title Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 stems from that phrase. LDSBJ 三寶記 should have omitted one of these titles/texts. How exactly the Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞録 recorded the two remains unknown. |
297-298 |
Hayashiya points out, following KYL 開元録, that in the Achawei jing 阿差末經 there is a phrase "晋言云無盡意" [surely referring to 阿差末者晉曰無盡意 T403:13.586b27, MR], and the alternative title Wujinyi jing 無盡意經 stems from that phrase. LDSBJ 三寶記 should have omitted one of these titles/texts. How exactly the Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞録 recorded the two remains unknown. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0403; 阿差末菩薩經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 KYL 開元錄: There is surviving Bapo posa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419. This text is roughly thirteen registers 段 long, but could easily be made into thirteen sheets, since it contains a number of verses. Thus, Hayashiya judges that T419 is the Batuo pusa jing 跋陀菩薩經 or Batuo pusa jing 拔陀菩薩經 that was listed in the catalogues since Jingtai. The vocabulary and the tone of the text are clearly of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Still, the vocabulary differs from that of Lokakṣema, the translator of the Banzhou sanmei jing [sic], so the text has to be classified as an anonymous scripture. Hayashiya claims that the variation in titles in different catalogues does not cause a problem, since there are no other texts that may be confused with this text, and the surviving T419 can legitimately regarded as the Bapituo pusa jing of Dao’an’s list. Hayashiya refers to his own Hayashiya 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 15 for more detailed discussions about the Banzhou sanmei jing and its alternate translations. |
1238-1241 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Bapituo pusa jing 颰披陀菩薩經 is listed in this catalogue, and was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed a Batuo pusa jing 跋陀菩薩經, and Hayashiya thinks that this title refers to the same text as the Bapituo pusa jing 颰披陀菩薩經. Hayashiya maintains that probably some of the editorial group of Fajing saw this text, because the note 是初四品 is added to the entry. Fajing listed this Batuo pusa jing as an alternate translation of the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經, along with another alternate translation, the Fo shuo banzhou sanmei nianfo zhang jing 佛説般舟三昧念佛章經. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong recorded a Batuo pusa jing 拔陀菩薩經 as an extant text, and alternate translation of the Banzhou sanmei jing. Jingtai followed Yancong in this regard, and showed it as thirteen sheets 紙 in length. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ listed a number of alternate translations of the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經, but somehow omitted this Bapituo pusa jing/Batuo pusa jing. Hayashiya does not even bother to show that this omission is not justified, but it is clear from the context that he means that it is not. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 Because LDSBJ omitted the Batuo pusa jing, DZKZM included the title again, citing the Zhenji xi lu 眞寂寺錄 as its source. Hayashiya thinks that the editorial group of DZKZM did not see the text because the catalogue does not show the length and does not list it in its inventory volume 入藏錄. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists a Bapo pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 with some alternate titles including Bapituo pusa jing 颰披陀菩薩經, referring to Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄. It also classified the text as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The text was extant at the time of KYL. There is surviving Bapo posa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419. This text is roughly thirteen registers 段 long, but could easily be made into thirteen sheets, since it contains a number of verses. Thus, Hayashiya judges that T419 is the Batuo pusa jing 跋陀菩薩經 or Batuo pusa jing 拔陀菩薩經 that was listed in the catalogues since Jingtai. The vocabulary and the tone of the text are clearly of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Still, the vocabulary differs from that of Lokaksema, the translator of the Banzhou sanmei jing [sic], so the text has to be classified as an anonymous scripture. Hayashiya claims that the variation in titles in different catalogues does not cause a problem, since there are no other texts that may be confused with this text, and the surviving T419 can legitimately regarded as the Bapituo pusa jing of Dao’an’s list. Hayashiya refers to his own Hayashiya 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 15 for more detailed discussions about the Banzhou sanmei jing and its alternate translations. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0419; 跋陀菩薩經; 拔陀菩薩經; 颰披陀菩薩經; 拔陂菩薩經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Anan ba meng jing 阿難八夢經 is as follows: The Anan ba meng jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 (with the comment that “八” is an error for “七”). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included an Anan qi meng jing 阿難七夢經 in its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same title in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本 as an anonymous scripture. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the same scripture with a length of two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively, the text must have been extant in those periods, with a length of two sheets. The Anan ba meng jing/Anan qi meng jing is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ, followed by KYL 開元錄. KYL recorded it as extant, with a length of two sheets. Hayashiya claims that, since both Jingtai and KYL state that the scripture is two sheets long, the actual length is probably a little more than one sheet in Jingtai’s format. Then he points out that the Anan qi meng jing ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in the Taishō (T494) is slightly longer than one register long, a length which matches the reports of Jingtai and KYL. However, Hayashiya argues that the style of language in T494 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, possibly of the Three Kingdoms 三國. Therefore, he asserts that T494 is 阿難八夢經 listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Hayashiya therefore concludes that the Taishō’s ascription of T494 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 must be incorrect, because this ascription merely follows KYL, who in turn follows LDSBJ, whose ascription has been proven to be incorrect. Thus, he concludes that the Anan ba meng jing/Anan qi meng jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
695-696 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Anan ba meng jing 阿難八夢經 is as follows: The Anan ba meng jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 (with the comment that “八” is an error for “七”). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included an Anan qi meng jing 阿難七夢經 in its Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same title in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本 as an anonymous scripture. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the same scripture with a length of two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively, the text must have been extant in those periods, with a length of two sheets. The Anan ba meng jing/Anan qi meng jing is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ, followed by KYL 開元錄. KYL recorded it as extant, with a length of two sheets. Hayashiya claims that, since both Jingtai and KYL state that the scripture is two sheets long, the actual length is probably a little more than one sheet in Jingtai’s format. Then he points out that the Anan qi meng jing ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in the Taisho (T494) is slightly longer than one register long, a length which matches the reports of Jingtai and KYL. However, Hayashiya argues that the style of language in T494 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, possibly of the Three Kingdoms 三國. Therefore, he asserts that T494 is 阿難八夢經 listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Hayashiya therefore concludes that the Taisho’s ascription of T494 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 must be incorrect, because this ascription merely follows KYL, who in turn follows LDSBJ, whose ascription has been proven to be incorrect. Thus, he concludes that the Anan ba meng jing/Anan qi meng jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0494; 阿難七夢經; 阿難八夢經, 七夢經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, : Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DTNDL 内典錄, KYL 開元錄 and the Taishō: Hayashiya compares T500 with Faju's surviving translations, viz., the Zhude futian jing 諸徳福田經 T683 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211. They share some vocabulary, but Hayashiya claims that this could be because they belong to roughly the same period (as evidenced by the fact that all of them are in Dao’an’s list). Hayashiya further claims that on the whole, the vocabulary and tone of T500 is quite different from that of T211 and T683, while the latter two texts are clearly composed by the same person. Thus, LDSBJ’s attribution of the Ren ru jing to Faju must be wrong. Hayashiya also maintains that that the Luoyun ren ru jing 羅云忍辱經in the Taishō is the same text that features in various catalogues since Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. His reason for this is as follows: it is clear that there existed no alternate translations, because the text was classified as a single Hīnayāna text in the catalogues down to Jingtai. Now, Jingtai, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, and KYL record the length of the text as three sheets, which is about two and half registers long in the Taishō. T500 has just about that length. Thus, it is safe to say that T500 is the same text that was noted since the time of Sengyou, and should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Apart from this Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經, Hayashiya also mentions a Ren ru jing 忍辱經 listed in the "catalogue of separately circulating offshoot scriptures" 支派別行經錄 of KYL. He claims that this text was taken from the Ren ru chapter (Ch. 30) 忍辱品第十三 of the Xiuxing daodi jing 修行道地經 (Yogācārabhūmi) T606, and that this text should not be identified wiht the title Ren ru jing 忍辱經 in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. This is because that Ren ru pin 忍辱品 is a small text, even shorter than eight line in the Taishō, and it is therefore unlikely that this text was recorded as an independent text by Sengyou. |
940-944 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also listed a Ren ru jing 忍辱經 in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. This text also was extant. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, : However, Fajing listed only a Luoyun ren jing 羅雲忍經, which Hayashiya thinks must refer to the Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經, with Ren ru jing 忍辱經 as an alternate title. Thus, although Sengyou listed the two titles separately, if we take Fajing’s view, the Luoyun ren ru jing and the Ren ru jing seem to be the same text. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and listed only one title, as a single Hinayana text. Jingtai stated that the text was three sheets 紙 long. Thus, the text was still extant in the Sui 隋 and the Tang 唐 periods, but its translator was not identified. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ listedthe Ren ru jing 忍辱經 as translated by Faju 法炬. Hayashiya argues that this attribution is highly dubious, for the following reasons: CSZJJ only lists four texts translated by Faju 法炬 (not including the Ren ru jing). This includies his co-translation with Fali 法立. LDSBJ classified all four of those texts as co-translation by Faju and Fali 法炬 and 法立, and attributed as many as 132 more titles to Faju 法炬. Such a huge number of new attributions on the part of LDSBJ must be considered regarded with suspicion, especially as the catalogue is notoriously unreliable. DTNDL 内典錄, KYL 開元錄 and the Taisho: DTNDL and KYL followed LDSBJ, and accordingly, the Luoyun ren ru jing in the Taisho (T500) is classified as by Faju. Hayashiya compares T500 with Faju's surviving translations, viz., the Zhude futian jing 諸徳福田經 T683 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211. They share some vocabulary, but Hayashiya claims that this could be because they belong to roughly the same period (as evidenced by the fact that all of them are in Dao’an’s list). Hayashiya further claims that on the whole, the vocabulary and tone of T500 is quite different from that of T211 and T683, while the latter two texts are clearly composed by the same person. Thus, LDSBJ’s attribution of the Ren ru jing to Faju must be wrong. Hayashiya also maintains that that the Luoyun ren ru jing 羅云忍辱經in the Taisho is the same text that features in various catalogues since Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. His reason for this is as follows: it is clear that there existed no alternate translations, because the text was classified as a single Hinayana text in the catalogues down to Jingtai. Now, Jingtai, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, and KYL record the length of the text as three sheets, which is about two and half registers long in the Taisho. T500 has just about that length. Thus, it is safe to say that T500 is the same text that was noted since the time of Sengyou, and should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Apart from this Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經, Hayashiya also mentions a Ren ru jing 忍辱經 listed in the "catalogue of separately circulating offshoot scriptures" 支派別行經錄 of KYL. He claims that this text was taken from the Ren ru chapter (Ch. 30) 忍辱品第十三 of the Xiuxing daodi jing 修行道地經 (Yogacarabhumi) T606, and that this text should not be identified wiht the title Ren ru jing 忍辱經 in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. This is because that Ren ru pin 忍辱品 is a small text, even shorter than eight line in the Taisho, and it is therefore unlikely that this text was recorded as an independent text by Sengyou. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0500; Luoyun ren jing 羅雲忍經; Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經; Ren ru jing 忍辱經; 羅云忍辱經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: LDSBJ 三寶紀, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: The text of the Ting shi biqiu jing is extant today as the Biqiu ting shi jing 比丘聽施經 T504, presented in the modern canon as Tanwulan's translation. However, the vocabulary and tone of T504 are clearly that of the Latter Han 後漢 period and the text cannot be by Tanwulan. Moreover, the text is recorded in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the ascription of this text to Tanwulan is incorrect, and the Biqiu ting shi jing/Ting shi biqiu jing should be recorded as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. |
1332-1333 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Ting shi biqiu jing 聽施比丘經 is listed in this catalogue and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this text in the category of alternate translations from the Samyuktagama, since the note attached to the Ting shi biqiu jing in the Dao'an's catalogue mentions that Dao'an states that the text is "one juan, from the Agama" 阿含一巻. Hayashiya maintains that this classification by Fajing is slightly far-fetched, because there is no text that corresponds to the Ting shi biqiu jing in the surviving SA. Nonetheless, Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in classifying the text as an alternate translation form SA, and Jingtai showed the length of the text as three sheets 紙. The text was considered an extant anonymous scripture in the catalogues down to Jingtai. LDSBJ 三寶紀, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: LDSBJ classified this text (with the title Biqiu ting shi jing 比丘聽施經) as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋 period. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄 followed LDSBJ in ascribing the text to Tanwualn. DZKZM classified it as an alternate text from SA, but KYL pointed out that there is no corresponding text in SA. The text of the Ting shi biqiu jing is extant today as the Biqiu ting shi jing 比丘聽施經 T504, presented in the modern canon as Tanwulan's translation. However, the vocabulary and tone of T504 are clearly that of the Latter Han 後漢 period and the text cannot be by Tanwulan. Moreover, the text is recorded in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the ascription of this text to Tanwulan is incorrect, and the Biqiu ting shi jing/Ting shi biqiu jing should be recorded as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0504; 比丘聽施經; 聽施比丘經 |
|
The Weishengyuan jing 未生怨經 (*Ajātaśatru-sūtra) is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. CSZJJ 出三藏記集 also lists a Weishengwang jing 未生王經 in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公涼土異經録. Zhisheng 智昇 suspects that the Weishengyuang jing 未生怨經 and the Weishengwang jing 未生王經 are the same text, but Hayashiya thinks that they are different. He provides detailed discussions on this in his separate chapter on the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公涼土異經録 in Hayashiya 1941, the present source. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu followed Dao'an and classified the Weishengyuan jing 未生怨經 as an anonymous scripture. However, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Foshou Weishengyuan jing 佛説未生怨經 in the category of lost texts, separately from the Weishengwang jing 未生怨經. Hayashiya rejects this second entry as an error, caused perhaps by forgetting to delete what was written by mistake in the category of lost texts. Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Yancong and made two entries for the Weishengyuan jing. He recorded the length of the extant Weishengyuan jing as three sheets 紙. It is clear that there was only one Weishengyuan jing, which was extant and considered as anonymous down to Jingtai’s time. LDSBJ 三寶記 listed this Weishengyuan jing as Zhi Qian's translation, but this ascription is groundless. Moreover, the vocabulary and tone of the Weishengyuan jing 未生寃經 T507 are clearly not that of Zhi Qian. Nonetheless, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ and classified the text as Zhi Qian's translation, although it omitted the non-existent Foshuou Weishengwang jing 佛説未生王經, which had been included in the catalogues since Yancong. KYL 開元錄 also lists the text as Zhi Qian's, and the surviving T507 is recorded as Zhi Qian's in the Taishō following KYL. However, the ascription to Zhi Qian by LDSBJ is clearly wrong. Since the Weishengyuan jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, the entry on this text should be corrected to show it as an anonymous scripture composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
863-865 |
The Weishengyuan jing 未生怨經 (*Ajatasatru-sutra) is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. CSZJJ 出三藏記集 also lists a Weishengwang jing 未生王經 in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公涼土異經録. Zhisheng 智昇 suspects that the Weishengyuang jing 未生怨經 and the Weishengwang jing 未生王經 are the same text, but Hayashiya thinks that they are different. He provides detailed discussions on this in his separate chapter on the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公涼土異經録 in Hayashiya 1941, the present source. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu followed Dao'an and classified the Weishengyuan jing 未生怨經 as an anonymous scripture. However, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Foshou Weishengyuan jing 佛説未生怨經 in the category of lost texts, separately from the Weishengwang jing 未生怨經. Hayashiya rejects this second entry as an error, caused perhaps by forgetting to delete what was written by mistake in the category of lost texts. Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Yancong and made two entries for the Weishengyuan jing. He recorded the length of the extant Weishengyuan jing as three sheets 紙. It is clear that there was only one Weishengyuan jing, which was extant and considered as anonymous down to Jingtai’s time. LDSBJ 三寶記 listed this Weishengyuan jing as Zhi Qian's translation, but this ascription is groundless. Moreover, the vocabulary and tone of the Weishengyuan jing 未生寃經 T507 are clearly not that of Zhi Qian. Nonetheless, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ and classified the text as Zhi Qian's translation, although it omitted the non-existent Foshuou Weishengwang jing 佛説未生王經, which had been included in the catalogues since Yancong. KYL 開元錄 also lists the text as Zhi Qian's, and the surviving T507 is recorded as Zhi Qian's in the Taisho following KYL. However, the ascription to Zhi Qian by LDSBJ is clearly wrong. Since the Weishengyuan jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, the entry on this text should be corrected to show it as an anonymous scripture composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0507; 佛說未生冤經; 未生怨經 |
|
The Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fujiasha wang jing as an alternate title for the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing. The text was classified as an alternate translation from the Madhyāgama 中阿含 T26. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in this regard. DTNDL 内典錄 records the text in the same manner with title as either Pingsha wang wu yuan jing or Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, while showing the length of the text as seven sheets 紙. Hayashiya maintains that the text of the Fujiasha wang jing/Pingsha wang wu yuan jing was extant from Sengyou’s time down to the time of DTNDL, and there do not appear to be any other alternate versions. Apart from those catalogues, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists a Fujiasha wang jing or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Zhi Qian’s translation, a Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 translation, and yet another Pingsha wang wu yuan jingas Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translation. Hayashiya then clarifies where those two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing came from. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, a Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 (var. Pingsha wang jing 蓱沙王經, 三本=SYM) is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録, and a Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 (Liusha wang jing 流沙王經, 三本=SYM) in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. LDSBJ 三寶記 uses the character ping 蓱 for Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translations, distinguishing them from the alternate title of Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, viz., *Ping*sha wang wu yuan jing “萍”沙王五願經. Hayashiya argues that the texts that LDSBJ regards as by Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong 釋嵩公 are likely to be the same ones listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue fo alternate scriptures from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録 and the assorted catalogue of anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, since the titles of those in the "Liang" catalogue also avoid the character ping 萍, which is used in the alternate title of the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, i.e., 萍沙王五願經. The characters ping 萍, ping 洴 and ping 蓱 are all used to express the sound bim- in the name of Bimbisāra, so any difference between those characters does not imply a difference in the original texts. Hayashiya points out further that, judging from the content of T511, the text could equally be called 萍沙王經, 萍沙王五願經 or 弗迦沙王經. As such, we can reasonably expect that the content of the Fujiasha wang jing in Dao’an’s list, that of the Pingsha wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue, and that of the Pingsha wang jing the "assorted anonymous" catalogue were actually the same. Especially, both the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 were lost at the time of Sengyou, and he listed them as different texts without seeing the texts, so it is highly likely that the two were indeed the same text. On the other hand, the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 must be different, since they are listed as different by Dao’an, who always checks the text directly. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as an anonymous scripture, separately from the Fujiasha wang jing (or the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經). This indicates that Fajing also thought that the Fujiasha wang jing and the Pinsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 were different. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai recorded the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as a lost text, so the text has been lost since the Sui 隋 period. Returning to LDSBJ, the text it classifies as Zhi Qian’s translation, under the title Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, must be the Fujiasha wang jing of Dao’an’s list, because Fei Changfang 費長房 specifies it as such, and because the title Fujiasha wang jing had been consistently used to refer to the text in Dao’an’s list in previous catalogues. As for the other two tiles in LDSBJ, one of the two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing---one of which is ascribed to Tanwulan, the other to Shi Songgong---must have been intended to be the one in Sengyou’s "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, and hence it should be omitted. However, it is not clear which of these two texts in LDSBJ was intended to be the one in Sengyou's 失譯雜經錄. In any case, LDSBJ’s ascription to the two translators is clearly unreliable, when probably there was only one text extant. Moreover, Fei does not provide any support for that ascription. In his comment on the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 stating that it is Shi Songgong's translation, Fei writes as if he is relying upon the Zhao catalogue 趙錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, but neither of those catalogues states that text is Shi Songgong's translation (Hayashiya here refers to Part Four of his own Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for further examinations of LDSBJ’s groundless references to the Zhao 趙錄 and Shixing catalogues 始興錄). Thus, Hayashiya argues, LDSBJ’s claims that there are two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing translated by Tanwulan and Shi Songgong should be ignored. Next, out of the Pingsha wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録 and the Pingsha wang jing in his "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, the text in the Liang catalogue has a reliable record, and should be kept as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. As for the Fojiasha wang jing, since LDSBJ suddenly claims that the text was Zhi Qian’s translation while all the previous catalogues recorded it as anonymous, so it is also clear that LDSBJ is unreliable and should be ignored. However, LDSBJ influenced DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also lists the Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 as Zhi Qian’s translation, and the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 as Shi Songgong's translation, although it omitted the text supposedly translated by Tanwulan. It is not at all clear which text DZKZM claims was translated by Zhi Qian and which by Shi Songgong. Moreover, DZKZM listed the Fojiasha wang jing or Pingsha 萍沙 wang wu yuan jing as a lost text, while regarding the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing as extant. While DZKZM showed just two of the three titles shown in LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists all of them. Furthermore, KYL adds the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing as a separate anonymous scripture of the Liang 梁 period, whereas it was previously listed in Dao'an's "Liang" [NB: 凉!] catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya points out that probably Zhisheng 智昇 did not notice that the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing ascribed to Tanwulan or Shi Songgong was precisely the text that had been classified as the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. The Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 followed KYL by listing the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing separately from the three titles previously shown by LDSBJ. Since only one of the two Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing must have been the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録, and when a Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing is listed separately, the two entries on the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing should be deleted. The Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing itself should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Former Liang 前凉 period. On the other hand, the text that LDSBJ wrongly ascribed to Zhi Qian was continuously extant, without any alternate versions noted, despite the varying attributions given to it by different catalogues. That text is the Pingshan wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 T511. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya also mentions that the title Fojiasha wang jing refers to this same T511, since there is no separate text recorded in any catalogue after CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya concludes that, although there are a number of entries listed separately in the catalogues with the title of Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 or something similar, most such entries are mistaken. The only ones of these texts that actually existed were T511, a.k.a. Fojiasha wang jing, and the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing. The former has survived, while the latter has been lost since the time of Sengyou. Both texts should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
875-883 |
The Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fujiasha wang jing as an alternate title for the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing. The text was classified as an alternate translation from the Madhyagama 中阿含 T26. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in this regard. DTNDL 内典錄 records the text in the same manner with title as either Pingsha wang wu yuan jing or Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, while showing the length of the text as seven sheets 紙. Hayashiya maintains that the text of the Fujiasha wang jing/Pingsha wang wu yuan jing was extant from Sengyou’s time down to the time of DTNDL, and there do not appear to be any other alternate versions. Apart from those catalogues, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists a Fujiasha wang jing or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Zhi Qian’s translation, a Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 translation, and yet another Pingsha wang wu yuan jingas Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translation. Hayashiya then clarifies where those two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing came from. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, a Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 (var. Pingsha wang jing 蓱沙王經, 三本=SYM) is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録, and a Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 (Liusha wang jing 流沙王經, 三本=SYM) in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. LDSBJ 三寶記 uses the character ping 蓱 for Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translations, distinguishing them from the alternate title of Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, viz., *Ping*sha wang wu yuan jing “萍”沙王五願經. Hayashiya argues that the texts that LDSBJ regards as by Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong 釋嵩公 are likely to be the same ones listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue fo alternate scriptures from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録 and the assorted catalogue of anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, since the titles of those in the "Liang" catalogue also avoid the character ping 萍, which is used in the alternate title of the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, i.e., 萍沙王五願經. The characters ping 萍, ping 洴 and ping 蓱 are all used to express the sound bim- in the name of Bimbisara, so any difference between those characters does not imply a difference in the original texts. Hayashiya points out further that, judging from the content of T511, the text could equally be called 萍沙王經, 萍沙王五願經 or 弗迦沙王經. As such, we can reasonably expect that the content of the Fujiasha wang jing in Dao’an’s list, that of the Pingsha wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue, and that of the Pingsha wang jing the "assorted anonymous" catalogue were actually the same. Especially, both the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 were lost at the time of Sengyou, and he listed them as different texts without seeing the texts, so it is highly likely that the two were indeed the same text. On the other hand, the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 must be different, since they are listed as different by Dao’an, who always checks the text directly. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as an anonymous scripture, separately from the Fujiasha wang jing (or the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經). This indicates that Fajing also thought that the Fujiasha wang jing and the Pinsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 were different. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai recorded the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as a lost text, so the text has been lost since the Sui 隋 period. Returning to LDSBJ, the text it classifies as Zhi Qian’s translation, under the title Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, must be the Fujiasha wang jing of Dao’an’s list, because Fei Changfang 費長房 specifies it as such, and because the title Fujiasha wang jing had been consistently used to refer to the text in Dao’an’s list in previous catalogues. As for the other two tiles in LDSBJ, one of the two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing---one of which is ascribed to Tanwulan, the other to Shi Songgong---must have been intended to be the one in Sengyou’s "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, and hence it should be omitted. However, it is not clear which of these two texts in LDSBJ was intended to be the one in Sengyou's 失譯雜經錄. In any case, LDSBJ’s ascription to the two translators is clearly unreliable, when probably there was only one text extant. Moreover, Fei does not provide any support for that ascription. In his comment on the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 stating that it is Shi Songgong's translation, Fei writes as if he is relying upon the Zhao catalogue 趙錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, but neither of those catalogues states that text is Shi Songgong's translation (Hayashiya here refers to Part Four of his own Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for further examinations of LDSBJ’s groundless references to the Zhao 趙錄 and Shixing catalogues 始興錄). Thus, Hayashiya argues, LDSBJ’s claims that there are two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing translated by Tanwulan and Shi Songgong should be ignored. Next, out of the Pingsha wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録 and the Pingsha wang jing in his "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, the text in the Liang catalogue has a reliable record, and should be kept as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. As for the Fojiasha wang jing, since LDSBJ suddenly claims that the text was Zhi Qian’s translation while all the previous catalogues recorded it as anonymous, so it is also clear that LDSBJ is unreliable and should be ignored. However, LDSBJ influenced DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also lists the Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 as Zhi Qian’s translation, and the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 as Shi Songgong's translation, although it omitted the text supposedly translated by Tanwulan. It is not at all clear which text DZKZM claims was translated by Zhi Qian and which by Shi Songgong. Moreover, DZKZM listed the Fojiasha wang jing or Pingsha 萍沙 wang wu yuan jing as a lost text, while regarding the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing as extant. While DZKZM showed just two of the three titles shown in LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists all of them. Furthermore, KYL adds the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing as a separate anonymous scripture of the Liang 梁 period, whereas it was previously listed in Dao'an's "Liang" [NB: 凉!] catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya points out that probably Zhisheng 智昇 did not notice that the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing ascribed to Tanwulan or Shi Songgong was precisely the text that had been classified as the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. The Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 followed KYL by listing the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing separately from the three titles previously shown by LDSBJ. Since only one of the two Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing must have been the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録, and when a Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing is listed separately, the two entries on the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing should be deleted. The Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing itself should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Former Liang 前凉 period. On the other hand, the text that LDSBJ wrongly ascribed to Zhi Qian was continuously extant, without any alternate versions noted, despite the varying attributions given to it by different catalogues. That text is the Pingshan wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 T511. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya also mentions that the title Fojiasha wang jing refers to this same T511, since there is no separate text recorded in any catalogue after CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya concludes that, although there are a number of entries listed separately in the catalogues with the title of Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 or something similar, most such entries are mistaken. The only ones of these texts that actually existed were T511, a.k.a. Fojiasha wang jing, and the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing. The former has survived, while the latter has been lost since the time of Sengyou. Both texts should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0511; 佛說蓱沙王五願經; 弗迦沙王經; 萍沙王五願經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 is as follows: A Da/xiao jian wang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Dao'an's original catalogue included by a Da jian wang jing 大諫王經 and a Xiao jian wang jing 小諫王經, but only one of these texts was extant in the time of Sengyou. It was not known whether the one that survived was the Da ~ or the Xiao ~, so the text was renamed Da/xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 in Sengyou's recompilation. The Da/xiao jian wang jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. Although DZKZM states that its description of the Da/xiao jian wang jing is based on the *Dharmottara catalogue 達磨欝多羅錄, Hayashiya maintains that it is much more likely to be based on LDSBJ, since DZKZM’s claim that the *Dharmottara catalogue ascribes the text to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 is implausible. Hayashiya asserts that the *Dharmottara catalogue mentioned by DZKZM is not the real *Dharmottara catalogue, viz., Fashang's catalogue 法上錄, adding that he intended to give evidence for this claim in a forthcoming work (without providing the title of said work). DZKZM recorded the length of the Da/xiao jian wang jing as four sheets. KYL also ascribes the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing to Juqu Jingsheng. The catalogue classifies it as an extant Mahāyāna text, one of an alternate translation group that also includes the Rulai shi jiao Shengjun wang jing 如來示教勝軍王經 and the Fo wei Shengguang tianzi shuo wangfa jing 佛爲勝光天子説王法經. Hayashiya points out that there is no support for categorizing the Da/xiao jian wang jing as a Mahāyāna text on the basis of its content. KYL recorded the length of the text as four sheets. Hayashiya maintains that, as all of Jingtai, DZKZM, and KYL show the same length, i.e., four sheets, the Da/xiao jian wang jing should be slightly less than approx. three and a half Taishō registers long. Then he points out that the Jian wang jing 諫王經 T514 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 has just about that length. Based on this, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taishō is the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing listed in the catalogues. He argues that the ascription of the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 must be wrong, because the style of language in T514 is that of the very early W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, and therefore cannot be Jingsheng’s; and because it was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. |
732-734 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 is as follows: A Da/xiao jian wang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Dao'an's original catalogue included by a Da jian wang jing 大諫王經 and a Xiao jian wang jing 小諫王經, but only one of these texts was extant in the time of Sengyou. It was not known whether the one that survived was the Da ~ or the Xiao ~, so the text was renamed Da/xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 in Sengyou's recompilation. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong (仁壽録) listed "Jian wang jing" 諫王經 alongside Da/xiao jian wang jing, as an alternate title. Hayashiya points out that since the Da/xiao jian wang jing was included in Yancong, it must have been extant in the Sui period. Jingtai recorded the text as a single Hinayana text with the length of four sheets 紙. The Da/xiao jian wang jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. Although DZKZM states that its description of the Da/xiao jian wang jing is based on the *Dharmottara catalogue 達磨欝多羅錄, Hayashiya maintains that it is much more likely to be based on LDSBJ, since DZKZM’s claim that the *Dharmottara catalogue ascribes the text to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 is implausible. Hayashiya asserts that the *Dharmottara catalogue mentioned by DZKZM is not the real *Dharmottara catalogue, viz., Fashang's catalogue 法上錄, adding that he intended to give evidence for this claim in a forthcoming work (without providing the title of said work). DZKZM recorded the length of the Da/xiao jian wang jing as four sheets. KYL also ascribes the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing to Juqu Jingsheng. The catalogue classifies it as an extant Mahayana text, one of an alternate translation group that also includes the Rulai shi jiao Shengjun wang jing 如來示教勝軍王經 and the Fo wei Shengguang tianzi shuo wangfa jing 佛爲勝光天子説王法經. Hayashiya points out that there is no support for categorizing the Da/xiao jian wang jing as a Mahayana text on the basis of its content. KYL recorded the length of the text as four sheets. Hayashiya maintains that, as all of Jingtai, DZKZM, and KYL show the same length, i.e., four sheets, the Da/xiao jian wang jing should be slightly less than approx. three and a half Taisho registers long. Then he points out that the Jian wang jing 諫王經 T514 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 has just about that length. Based on this, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taisho is the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing listed in the catalogues. He argues that the ascription of the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 must be wrong, because the style of language in T514 is that of the very early W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, and therefore cannot be Jingsheng’s; and because it was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0514; 佛說諫王經; 大小諫王經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Moluo wang jing 末羅王經 is as follows: A Moluo wang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as 末羅王經一巻 (1 juan). The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Moluo wang jing as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) included the text as well, in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the Moluo wang jing must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as it is a catalogue of extant scriptures 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the Moluo wang jing as a single Hīnayāna text, stating its length as two sheets 紙. The Moluo wang jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was extant and two sheets long. KYL 開元錄 also listed the Moluo wang jing as an extant single Hīnayāna text, and ascribes it to Juqu Jingsheng. This catalogue also specified the text’s length as two sheets. Taishō: Hayashiya maintains that, since Jingtai, DZKZM, and KYL recorded the length of the Moluo wang jing as two sheets, it should be just one and a half registers long or shorter if it is included in the Taishō. Then he points out that Moluo wang jing 末羅王經 T517 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 is about one and one-fourth registers long. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taishō is the 末羅王經 listed in catalogues since the Sui period. He argues that the ascription of 末羅王經 to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, who was active in the Song period, is incorrect because the style of language in T517 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. He mentions the opening formula of the text, 聞如是, and the closing formula, 聞經卽解、諸比丘歡喜、前爲佛作禮, as examples of the W. Jin style. He concludes that the Moluo wang jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, which was listed in Dao'an's catalogue. |
724-725 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Moluo wang jing 末羅王經 is as follows: A Moluo wang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as 末羅王經一巻 (1 juan). The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Moluo wang jing as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) included the text as well, in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the Moluo wang jing must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as it is a catalogue of extant scriptures 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the Moluo wang jing as a single Hinayana text, stating its length as two sheets 紙. The Moluo wang jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was extant and two sheets long. KYL 開元錄 also listed the Moluo wang jing as an extant single Hinayana text, and ascribes it to Juqu Jingsheng. This catalogue also specified the text’s length as two sheets. Taisho: Hayashiya maintains that, since Jingtai, DZKZM, and KYL recorded the length of the Moluo wang jing as two sheets, it should be just one and a half registers long or shorter if it is included in the Taisho. Then he points out that Moluo wang jing 末羅王經 T517 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 is about one and one-fourth registers long. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taisho is the 末羅王經 listed in catalogues since the Sui period. He argues that the ascription of 末羅王經 to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, who was active in the Song period, is incorrect because the style of language in T517 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. He mentions the opening formula of the text, 聞如是, and the closing formula, 聞經卽解、諸比丘歡喜、前爲佛作禮, as examples of the W. Jin style. He concludes that the Moluo wang jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, which was listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0517; 末羅王經; 佛說末羅王經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Zhantuoyue guowang jing 旃陀越國王經 is as follows: The Zhantuoyue guowang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as 旃陀越國王經一巻 (1 juan). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Zhantuoyue guowang jing in its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) listed the Zhantuoyue guowang jing in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the inclusion in Yancong shows that the Zhantuoyue guowang jing was extant in the Sui period. Jingtai 靜泰錄 included the scripture as a single Hīnayāna text, stating its length as two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that all the catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄 down to Jingtai list the Zhantuoyue guowang jing as an anonymous scripture. The Zhantuoyue guowang jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was extant, but did not record its length. KYL 開元錄 also included the Zhantuoyue guowang jing as an extant single Hīnayāna text, ascribed it to Juqu Jingsheng, and states its length as two sheets. Hayashiya points out that a text whose length is recorded as two sheets in both Jingtai and KYL should be less than one and a half registers long in the Taishō. Then he points out that the Zhantuoyue guowang jing T518 is two full registers long. Although it may appear that the text listed in KYL and that in the Taishō are different, Hayashiya asserts that the Zhantuoyue guowang jing has been a single text with little room for confusion as to its identity since the early times. He claims that it is much more likely that KYL recorded the length of the scripture as three sheets, not the two. He conjectures that it made such mistake probably because, since DZKZM did not record the length, KYL just took the length (i.e., two sheets) shown in Jingtai or the [Da Tang] neidian lu 内典録. There actually are five or six cases of such mistakes, according to Hayashiya. |
741-742 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Zhantuoyue guowang jing 旃陀越國王經 is as follows: The Zhantuoyue guowang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as 旃陀越國王經一巻 (1 juan). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Zhantuoyue guowang jing in its Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) listed the Zhantuoyue guowang jing in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the inclusion in Yancong shows that the Zhantuoyue guowang jing was extant in the Sui period. Jingtai 靜泰錄 included the scripture as a single Hinayana text, stating its length as two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that all the catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄 down to Jingtai list the Zhantuoyue guowang jing as an anonymous scripture. The Zhantuoyue guowang jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was extant, but did not record its length. KYL 開元錄 also included the Zhantuoyue guowang jing as an extant single Hinayana text, ascribed it to Juqu Jingsheng, and states its length as two sheets. Hayashiya points out that a text whose length is recorded as two sheets in both Jingtai and KYL should be less than one and a half registers long in the Taisho. Then he points out that the Zhantuoyue guowang jing T518 is two full registers long. Although it may appear that the text listed in KYL and that in the Taisho are different, Hayashiya asserts that the Zhantuoyue guowang jing has been a single text with little room for confusion as to its identity since the early times. He claims that it is much more likely that KYL recorded the length of the scripture as three sheets, not the two. He conjectures that it made such mistake probably because, since DZKZM did not record the length, KYL just took the length (i.e., two sheets) shown in Jingtai or the [Da Tang] neidian lu 内典録. There actually are five or six cases of such mistakes, according to Hayashiya. Thus, the Zhantuoyue guowang jing has been extant since the Sui period, and is included in the Taisho. Hayashiya argues that the ascription of the Zhantuoyue guowang jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, who was active in the Song period, is incorrect, because the style of T518 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and hence cannot be that of Jingsheng. He concludes that the Zhantuoyue guowang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, based also on the fact the title was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0518; 佛說旃陀越國王經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Moda wang jing is as follows: A Moda wang jing 摩達王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists a Moda guowang jing 摩達國王經 in its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) includes the text as well, in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the text must have been extant at the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong's is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the length of the text as two sheets 紙. A Moda wang jing/Moda guowang jing is first ascribed to Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, which lists it as a single Hīnayāna translation 小乗經單譯. DZKZM also claims that the scripture is two sheets long. Hayashiya claims that the text should be one and a half registers long or slightly shorter in the format of the Taishō, since both Jingtai and DZKZM record its length as two sheets. He also points out that there should only ever have been one version of the text, since KYL also listed it in the category of single extant Hīnayāna translations. The Moda guowang jing T519 in the Taishō, ascribed to Jingsheng, has a length of one and a quarter registers. Hayashiya assert that this length shows that T519 is the text listed in the catalogues since the Sui period. As for the style and language, Hayashiya claims that T519 clearly has the style of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, suitable for texts listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the ascription of T519 to Jingsheng is incorrect, and the text should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. |
749-751 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Moda wang jing is as follows: A Moda wang jing 摩達王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists a Moda guowang jing 摩達國王經 in its Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) includes the text as well, in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the text must have been extant at the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong's is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the length of the text as two sheets 紙. A Moda wang jing/Moda guowang jing is first ascribed to Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, which lists it as a single Hinayana translation 小乗經單譯. DZKZM also claims that the scripture is two sheets long. Hayashiya claims that the text should be one and a half registers long or slightly shorter in the format of the Taisho, since both Jingtai and DZKZM record its length as two sheets. He also points out that there should only ever have been one version of the text, since KYL also listed it in the category of single extant Hinayana translations. The Moda guowang jing T519 in the Taisho, ascribed to Jingsheng, has a length of one and a quarter registers. Hayashiya assert that this length shows that T519 is the text listed in the catalogues since the Sui period. As for the style and language, Hayashiya claims that T519 clearly has the style of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, suitable for texts listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the ascription of T519 to Jingsheng is incorrect, and the text should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0519; Moda wang jing 摩達王經; 佛說摩達國王經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Fanmonan wang jing 梵摩難王經 is as follows: A Fanmonan wang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Fanmonan wang jing in 1 juan. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Fanmonan wang jing in its "Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) also lists the title in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the Fanmonan wang jing must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 records the Fanmonan wang jing with a length of two sheets 紙. Da Tang neidian lu 内典録 lists the text with the title Fanmohenan guowang jing 梵摩和難國王經, also with a length of two sheets, in its catalogues of scriptures admitted to the canon 入藏錄. The catalogue of scriptures admitted to the canon in KYL 開元錄 also records the length of the Fanmohenan guowang jing as two sheets. Thus, Hayashiya points out that the length of the Fanmohenan guowang jing /Fanmonan wang jing is said to be two sheets unanimously by the catalogues that record length. Hayashiya adds that LDSBJ somehow omitted the Fanmohenan guowang jing/Fanmonan wang jing, but KYL was right in including it again. Subsequently, Hayashiya claims that the Fanmonan wang jing T521 in the Taishō is also approximately two sheets long and its style is clearly that of W. Jin 西晋. Hence, Hayashiya asserts that T521 is the Fanmonan wang jing 梵摩難王經 listed in Dao’an’s and other catalogues. |
541-542 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Fanmonan wang jing 梵摩難王經 is as follows: A Fanmonan wang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Fanmonan wang jing in 1 juan. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Fanmonan wang jing in its "Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) also lists the title in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the Fanmonan wang jing must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 records the Fanmonan wang jing with a length of two sheets 紙. Da Tang neidian lu 内典録 lists the text with the title Fanmohenan guowang jing 梵摩和難國王經, also with a length of two sheets, in its catalogues of scriptures admitted to the canon 入藏錄. The catalogue of scriptures admitted to the canon in KYL 開元錄 also records the length of the Fanmohenan guowang jing as two sheets. Thus, Hayashiya points out that the length of the Fanmohenan guowang jing /Fanmonan wang jing is said to be two sheets unanimously by the catalogues that record length. Hayashiya adds that LDSBJ somehow omitted the Fanmohenan guowang jing/Fanmonan wang jing, but KYL was right in including it again. Subsequently, Hayashiya claims that the Fanmonan wang jing T521 in the Taisho is also approximately two sheets long and its style is clearly that of W. Jin 西晋. Hence, Hayashiya asserts that T521 is the Fanmonan wang jing 梵摩難王經 listed in Dao’an’s and other catalogues. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0521; 佛說梵摩難國王經; Fanmonan wang jing 梵摩難王經 |
|
910-928 |
T0526; 佛說長者子制經; 佛説長者子制經 | |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on these and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Other catalogues, and Taishō: Hayashiya argues that only two texts have ever existed in this group: the Shi jing 逝經 (or Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經) and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經. His two main reasons for this claim are as follows. First, among the four titles shown by Sengyou, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 are likely to be the same. This is because the difference of the two characters zhi 制and she 誓 between these titles can easily be explained as variants of Shi 逝 in the title Shi jing 逝經. Also, Sengyou saw the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經, but not the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經, so his note claiming that the two were different was not based on direct observation. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the two titles as referring to the same text. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu omitted the Zhangzhezi Shi jing, and Hayashiya thinks that this omission is sensible because since the catalogue lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing, the Zhangzhezi Shi jing should be redundant. Second, Sengyou states that the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 is roughly the same 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經/ or Shi jing 逝經. Hayashiya points out that, among the three versions in the Taishō, two of them, namely, the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經T528 and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526, are indeed extremely similar. Differences between them are so minor that they must have been created during the transmission process, cannot have been due to differences in the original texts or translators. Hayashiya also claims that T528 appears to be closer to the original form than T526. Thus, T528 and T526 should be considered as the same text, and the title "Shi tongzi jing" in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures refers probably not the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527, but rather, to the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526. Thus, the only truly separate texts that ever existed were the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 and the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. As for the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 (i.e. the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526), Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and subsequent catalogues ascribe the text to Zhi Fadu 支法度. Hayashiya infers that the initial source of this ascription is Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄. Hence, the ascription is largely reliable. The vocabulary and tone of T526 also support this ascription, since they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya admits that, since there are no surviving texts that clearly ascribed to Zhi Fadu, it is methodologically impossible to undertake a detailed examination of the text to determine the translator decisively. However, as the text is probably Zhi Fadu's translation, Dao’an and Sengyou’s treatment of it as anonymous should be considered as having preceded closer scrutiny by Baochang. Given that T526 is Zhi Fadu's translation, this means that T528 must be his translation as well, since they are the same text. As for the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing/Zhangzhezi Shi jing (Hayashiya appears to regard this text as the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527), judging from its vocabulary and tone, it should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya claims that all other entries and attributions regarding related texts, appearing in the various catalogues, are incorrect and should be eliminated. For example, the Taishō ascribes T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, T526 to An Shigao 安世高, and T527 to Zhi Fadu, presumably following KYL 開元錄. All of these ascriptions are wrong and should be changed to the above mentioned ascriptions: T528 is by Zhi Fadu, T526 is also by Zhi Fadu (and should perhaps be better omitted, since it is not in reality a truly independent text), and T527 is anonymous. |
910-925 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on these and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Shi jing 逝經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: CSZJJ records three other titles that are considered to be alternate translations of this text in its catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, which are: Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經. Sengyou actually saw three of those four texts, except for the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經. Other catalogues, and Taisho: Later catalogues added several more entries to those above, with various attributions. Taisho has three titles that belong to this group: Pusa shi jing 菩薩逝經 T0528, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T0526, and Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T0527. Hayashiya argues that only two texts have ever existed in this group: the Shi jing 逝經 (or Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經) and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經. His two main reasons for this claim are as follows. First, among the four titles shown by Sengyou, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 are likely to be the same. This is because the difference of the two characters zhi 制and she 誓 between these titles can easily be explained as variants of Shi 逝 in the title Shi jing 逝經. Also, Sengyou saw the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經, but not the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經, so his note claiming that the two were different was not based on direct observation. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the two titles as referring to the same text. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu omitted the Zhangzhezi Shi jing, and Hayashiya thinks that this omission is sensible because since the catalogue lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing, the Zhangzhezi Shi jing should be redundant. Second, Sengyou states that the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 is roughly the same 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經/ or Shi jing 逝經. Hayashiya points out that, among the three versions in the Taisho, two of them, namely, the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經T528 and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526, are indeed extremely similar. Differences between them are so minor that they must have been created during the transmission process, cannot have been due to differences in the original texts or translators. Hayashiya also claims that T528 appears to be closer to the original form than T526. Thus, T528 and T526 should be considered as the same text, and the title "Shi tongzi jing" in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures refers probably not the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527, but rather, to the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526. Thus, the only truly separate texts that ever existed were the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 and the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. As for the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 (i.e. the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526), Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and subsequent catalogues ascribe the text to Zhi Fadu 支法度. Hayashiya infers that the initial source of this ascription is Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄. Hence, the ascription is largely reliable. The vocabulary and tone of T526 also support this ascription, since they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya admits that, since there are no surviving texts that clearly ascribed to Zhi Fadu, it is methodologically impossible to undertake a detailed examination of the text to determine the translator decisively. However, as the text is probably Zhi Fadu's translation, Dao’an and Sengyou’s treatment of it as anonymous should be considered as having preceded closer scrutiny by Baochang. Given that T526 is Zhi Fadu's translation, this means that T528 must be his translation as well, since they are the same text. As for the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing/Zhangzhezi Shi jing (Hayashiya appears to regard this text as the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527), judging from its vocabulary and tone, it should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya claims that all other entries and attributions regarding related texts, appearing in the various catalogues, are incorrect and should be eliminated. For example, the Taisho ascribes T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, T526 to An Shigao 安世高, and T527 to Zhi Fadu, presumably following KYL 開元錄. All of these ascriptions are wrong and should be changed to the above mentioned ascriptions: T528 is by Zhi Fadu, T526 is also by Zhi Fadu (and should perhaps be better omitted, since it is not in reality a truly independent text), and T527 is anonymous. Zhi Fadu, 支法度 T0526; 佛說長者子制經; 佛説長者子制經 T0528; 佛說菩薩逝經; 菩薩逝經; Shi jing 逝經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on these and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Other catalogues, and Taishō: Hayashiya argues that only two texts have ever existed in this group: the Shi jing 逝經 (or Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經) and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經. His two main reasons for this claim are as follows. First, among the four titles shown by Sengyou, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 are likely to be the same. This is because the difference of the two characters zhi 制and she 誓 between these titles can easily be explained as variants of Shi 逝 in the title Shi jing 逝經. Also, Sengyou saw the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經, but not the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經, so his note claiming that the two were different was not based on direct observation. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the two titles as referring to the same text. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu omitted the Zhangzhezi Shi jing, and Hayashiya thinks that this omission is sensible because since the catalogue lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing, the Zhangzhezi Shi jing should be redundant. Second, Sengyou states that the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 is roughly the same 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經/ or Shi jing 逝經. Hayashiya points out that, among the three versions in the Taishō, two of them, namely, the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經T528 and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526, are indeed extremely similar. Differences between them are so minor that they must have been created during the transmission process, cannot have been due to differences in the original texts or translators. Hayashiya also claims that T528 appears to be closer to the original form than T526. Thus, T528 and T526 should be considered as the same text, and the title "Shi tongzi jing" in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures refers probably not the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527, but rather, to the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526. Thus, the only truly separate texts that ever existed were the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 and the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. As for the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 (i.e. the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526), Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and subsequent catalogues ascribe the text to Zhi Mindu 支法度. Hayashiya infers that the initial source of this ascription is Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄. Hence, the ascription is largely reliable. The vocabulary and tone of T526 also support this ascription, since they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya admits that, since there are no surviving texts that clearly ascribed to Zhi Mindu, it is methodologically impossible to undertake a detailed examination of the text to determine the translator decisively. However, as the text is probably Zhi Fadu's translation, Dao’an and Sengyou’s treatment of it as anonymous should be considered as having preceded closer scrutiny by Baochang. Given that T526 is Zhi Mindu's translation, this means that T528 must be his translation as well, since they are the same text. As for the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing/Zhangzhezi Shi jing (Hayashiya appears to regard this text as the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527), judging from its vocabulary and tone, it should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya claims that all other entries and attributions regarding related texts, appearing in the various catalogues, are incorrect and should be eliminated. For example, the Taishō ascribes T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, T526 to An Shigao 安世高, and T527 to 支法度, presumably following KYL 開元錄. All of these ascriptions are wrong and should be changed to the above mentioned ascriptions: T528 is by Zhi Fadu, T526 is also by Zhi Fadu (and should perhaps be better omitted, since it is not in reality a truly independent text), and T527 is anonymous. |
910-925 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on these and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Shi jing 逝經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: CSZJJ records three other titles that are considered to be alternate translations of this text in its catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, which are: Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經. Sengyou actually saw three of those four texts, except for the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經. Other catalogues, and Taisho: Later catalogues added several more entries to those above, with various attributions. Taisho has three titles that belong to this group: 菩薩逝經 T0528, 長者子制經 T0526, and 逝童子經 T0527. Hayashiya argues that only two texts have ever existed in this group: the Shi jing 逝經 (or Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經) and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經. His two main reasons for this claim are as follows. First, among the four titles shown by Sengyou, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 are likely to be the same. This is because the difference of the two characters zhi 制and she 誓 between these titles can easily be explained as variants of Shi 逝 in the title Shi jing 逝經. Also, Sengyou saw the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經, but not the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經, so his note claiming that the two were different was not based on direct observation. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the two titles as referring to the same text. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu omitted the Zhangzhezi Shi jing, and Hayashiya thinks that this omission is sensible because since the catalogue lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing, the Zhangzhezi Shi jing should be redundant. Second, Sengyou states that the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 is roughly the same 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經/ or Shi jing 逝經. Hayashiya points out that, among the three versions in the Taisho, two of them, namely, the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經T528 and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526, are indeed extremely similar. Differences between them are so minor that they must have been created during the transmission process, cannot have been due to differences in the original texts or translators. Hayashiya also claims that T528 appears to be closer to the original form than T526. Thus, T528 and T526 should be considered as the same text, and the title "Shi tongzi jing" in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures refers probably not the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527, but rather, to the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526. Thus, the only truly separate texts that ever existed were the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 and the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. As for the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 (i.e. the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526), Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and subsequent catalogues ascribe the text to Zhi Mindu 支法度. Hayashiya infers that the initial source of this ascription is Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄. Hence, the ascription is largely reliable. The vocabulary and tone of T526 also support this ascription, since they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya admits that, since there are no surviving texts that clearly ascribed to Zhi Mindu, it is methodologically impossible to undertake a detailed examination of the text to determine the translator decisively. However, as the text is probably Zhi Fadu's translation, Dao’an and Sengyou’s treatment of it as anonymous should be considered as having preceded closer scrutiny by Baochang. Given that T526 is Zhi Mindu's translation, this means that T528 must be his translation as well, since they are the same text. As for the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing/Zhangzhezi Shi jing (Hayashiya appears to regard this text as the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527), judging from its vocabulary and tone, it should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya claims that all other entries and attributions regarding related texts, appearing in the various catalogues, are incorrect and should be eliminated. For example, the Taisho ascribes T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, T526 to An Shigao 安世高, and T527 to 支法度, presumably following KYL 開元錄. All of these ascriptions are wrong and should be changed to the above mentioned ascriptions: T528 is by Zhi Fadu, T526 is also by Zhi Fadu (and should perhaps be better omitted, since it is not in reality a truly independent text), and T527 is anonymous. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0527; 佛說逝童子經 |
|
T0528; 佛說菩薩逝經; 菩薩逝經; Shi jing 逝經 | ||
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: LDSBJ 三寶記: KYL 開元錄: There is an extant Ajiuliu jing 阿鳩留經 T529. Hayashiya asserts that this text is the one listed in KYL, because the length T529 is slightly longer than three registers 段, just about the length shown by Zhisheng. The vocabulary and tone of T529 are of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or earlier, not of the Latter Han 後漢 period. |
1241-1242 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: An Ajiuliu jing 阿鳩留經 is listed in this catalogue, and was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed this text as an anonymous Hinayana text. Yancong included it in the group of Hinayana "offshoot excerpt texts" 別生抄. Hayashiya maintains that, although it remains unclear if the text was extant in the Sui 隋 period, some of the editorial group of Yancong must have seen it, because the catalogue newly classifies it as an offshoot text. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ omitted this title, which Hayashiya claims is unjustified. KYL 開元錄: Zhisheng 智昇 obtained the text of the Ajiuliu jing 阿鳩留經 and listed it in KYL as an extant single Hinayana text. He also shows the date of composition as the Latter Han 後漢 period and also the length as four sheets 紙. There is an extant Ajiuliu jing 阿鳩留經 T529. Hayashiya asserts that this text is the one listed in KYL, because the length T529 is slightly longer than three registers 段, just about the length shown by Zhisheng. The vocabulary and tone of T529 are of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or earlier, not of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0529; 佛說阿鳩留經 |
|
The Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and also regarded as anonymous in other catalogues down to 靜泰錄. There appears to be no alternate translation of this text, as it is listed in the category of unique (single-translation) Mahāyāna texts. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists two versions of the Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經, one translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the other by [Juqu] Jingsheng 京聲. Hayashiya maintains that these attributions are groundless, and accordingly, that the claim that two separate translations existed is also groundless. Nonetheless, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ, adding that the text that had been acknowledged in the catalogues was Zhi Qian’s, and that Juqu Jingsheng's translation was lost. KYL 開元錄 followed DZKZM and showed the length of the extant version as five sheets 紙. Hayashiya claims that that is the reason that T531 is ascribed to Zhi Qian. It is clear this surviving text is the same text as the one recorded in the catalogues before LDSBJ as anonymous, since there were no alternate versions and the recorded length is about the same as that of T531. |
860-863 |
The Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and also regarded as anonymous in other catalogues down to 靜泰錄. There appears to be no alternate translation of this text, as it is listed in the category of unique (single-translation) Mahayana texts. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists two versions of the Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經, one translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the other by [Juqu] Jingsheng 京聲. Hayashiya maintains that these attributions are groundless, and accordingly, that the claim that two separate translations existed is also groundless. Nonetheless, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ, adding that the text that had been acknowledged in the catalogues was Zhi Qian’s, and that Juqu Jingsheng's translation was lost. KYL 開元錄 followed DZKZM and showed the length of the extant version as five sheets 紙. Hayashiya claims that that is the reason that T531 is ascribed to Zhi Qian. It is clear this surviving text is the same text as the one recorded in the catalogues before LDSBJ as anonymous, since there were no alternate versions and the recorded length is about the same as that of T531. Thus, although the Zhangzhe yinyue 長者音悦經 might have been considered as having two alternate translations, viz., Zhi Qian's and Juqu Jingsheng's there has in fact only ever been one version of this text, and attributions to both Zhi Qian and Jingsheng are spurious. The vocabulary and tone of T531 are clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, so it cannot be Juqu Jingsheng's work. On the other hand, there is no evidence that it is Zhi Qian's work either. Hence, T531 should be regarded as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0531; 佛說長者音悅經 |
The Taisho carries a note saying that an alternate name of this text is Pusa daoshu jing 菩薩道樹經. According to Hayashiya's summary, the identification of Zhi Qian's text with this title goes back to Fajing. Subsequent bibliographers accepted this identification and did not record the two texts separately, until Zhisheng again separated them in his KYL. Dao'an 道安 lists these two titles separately, and ascribes only the 私阿末經 to Zhi Qian, regarding the Pusa daoshu jing as anonymous. This should give us pause in identifying the two with one another--if they were the same, why would Dao'an have separated them?--though it is also possible that Dao'an 道安 made a mistake. Hayashiya concludes that these two titles may have referred to alternate translations of the same original text by different translators. |
481-484 |
The Taisho carries a note saying that an alternate name of this text is Pusa daoshu jing 菩薩道樹經. According to Hayashiya's summary, the identification of Zhi Qian's text with this title goes back to Fajing. Subsequent bibliographers accepted this identification and did not record the two texts separately, until Zhisheng again separated them in his KYL. Dao'an 道安 lists these two titles separately, and ascribes only the 私阿末經 to Zhi Qian, regarding the Pusa daoshu jing as anonymous. This should give us pause in identifying the two with one another--if they were the same, why would Dao'an have separated them?--though it is also possible that Dao'an 道安 made a mistake. Hayashiya concludes that these two titles may have referred to alternate translations of the same original text by different translators. T0532; Sihemei jing, 私呵昧經; Sihemo jing, 私呵末經; Sihe sanmei jing, 私呵三昧經; Pusa daoshu jing, 菩薩道樹經; Simhamati-sutra; Daoshu sanmei jing, 道樹三昧經 | |
|
According to Hayashiya, the Shenri jing 申日經 is listed in Sengyou's 僧祐 recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 and was extant in the time of Sengyou. It is difficult to discuss the ascription of this text without mentioning some other texts, because there also existed alternate translations, such as the Shenri dou ben jing 申日兜本經 and the Shiliyue jing 失利越經. Further, there are overlapping descriptions in some catalogues between this text and the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經, and the Yueguang tongzi jing was also sometimes thought of as an alternate translation of the Shenri jing due to the fact that in the catalogues in and after the Sui 隋 period, the Yueming tongzi jing 月明童子經 is also called the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經. Hayashiya refers to his own 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 7 for a detailed examination. Hayashiya argues that T535, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, is not the same text as the Shenri jing 申日經 recorded in Daoan’s list. The vocabulary and tone of the text are clearly not that of Dharmarakṣa. They are not Zhi Qian's, either, as can be seen by comparison with the vocabulary and tone of his Yueming pusa jing 月明菩薩經. Thus, both LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄 are incorrect: The former ascribes the text to Zhi Qian 支謙 and the latter to Dharmarakṣa. The Shenri jing 申日經 therefore should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
835-837 |
According to Hayashiya, the Shenri jing 申日經 is listed in Sengyou's 僧祐 recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 and was extant in the time of Sengyou. It is difficult to discuss the ascription of this text without mentioning some other texts, because there also existed alternate translations, such as the Shenri dou ben jing 申日兜本經 and the Shiliyue jing 失利越經. Further, there are overlapping descriptions in some catalogues between this text and the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經, and the Yueguang tongzi jing was also sometimes thought of as an alternate translation of the Shenri jing due to the fact that in the catalogues in and after the Sui 隋 period, the Yueming tongzi jing 月明童子經 is also called the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經. Hayashiya refers to his own 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 7 for a detailed examination. Hayashiya argues that T535, ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護, is not the same text as the Shenri jing 申日經 recorded in Daoan’s list. The vocabulary and tone of the text are clearly not that of Dharmaraksa. They are not Zhi Qian's, either, as can be seen by comparison with the vocabulary and tone of his Yueming pusa jing 月明菩薩經. Thus, both LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄 are incorrect: The former ascribes the text to Zhi Qian 支謙 and the latter to Dharmaraksa. The Shenri jing 申日經 therefore should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0535; 佛說申日經; Shenyue jing 申曰經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Atiao/Adiao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經 is as follows: The Atiao/Adiao anahan jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Hediao anahan jing 荷鵰阿那含經 with Atiao/Adiao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經 as an alternate title in its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same titles in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the Hediao~ 荷鵰~ with a length of two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively, the text must have been extant in those periods. The scripture is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ, followed by KYL 開元錄. KYL recorded the length of the text as two sheets. Hayashiya infers that the length of the text of the Atiao/Adiao anahan jing was no more than one and a half sheets in Jingtai’s format, because both Jingtai and KYL recorded the length as two sheets. Then he points out that the Adiao anahan jing 呵雕阿那鋡經 ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in the Taishō (T538) is slightly longer than one and a half registers long. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taishō is the the Atiao/Adiao/Hediao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經／荷鵰~ was listed in Jingtai and KYL. He argues that the ascription of the scripture to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 is incorrect, because the style of language in T538 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and therefore it is the Atiao/Adiao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經 listed in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. He concludes that the text should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. |
700-701 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Atiao/Adiao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經 is as follows: The Atiao/Adiao anahan jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Hediao anahan jing 荷鵰阿那含經 with Atiao/Adiao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經 as an alternate title in its Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same titles in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the Hediao~ 荷鵰~ with a length of two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively, the text must have been extant in those periods. The scripture is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ, followed by KYL 開元錄. KYL recorded the length of the text as two sheets. Hayashiya infers that the length of the text of the Atiao/Adiao anahan jing was no more than one and a half sheets in Jingtai’s format, because both Jingtai and KYL recorded the length as two sheets. Then he points out that the Adiao anahan jing 呵雕阿那鋡經 ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in the Taisho (T538) is slightly longer than one and a half registers long. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taisho is the the Atiao/Adiao/Hediao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經/荷鵰~ was listed in Jingtai and KYL. He argues that the ascription of the scripture to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 is incorrect, because the style of language in T538 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and therefore it is the Atiao/Adiao anahan jing 阿調阿那含經 listed in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. He concludes that the text should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0538; 阿調阿那含經, 荷鵰阿那含經; 佛說呵雕阿那鋡經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Seng da jing 僧大經 is as follows: A Seng da jing 僧大經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with an alternate title Fo da seng da jing 佛大僧大經, which is used in later catalogues. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fo da seng da jing as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) included the text as well, in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong's is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the length of the text as six sheets 紙. The Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was seven sheets long. KYL 開元錄 also listed the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing as an extant single Hīnayāna text, and ascribes it to Juqu Jingsheng. This catalogue also specified the text’s length as seven sheets. Hayashiya maintains that the lengths shown in Jingtai, DZKZM, and KYL are evidence that these catalogues list one and the same text of the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing . Taishō: Hayashiya points out that the Fo da seng da jing 佛大僧大經 T541 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 is six registers and twelve lines long, and that this length matches the length in the earlier catalogues, viz., six sheets in Jingtai and seven in DZKZM and KYL. Based on this, he asserts that this text in the Taishō is the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing listed in the catalogues. He argues that the ascription of the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 must be incorrect, because the style of language in T541 is that of the very early W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, and because it was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. |
731-732 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Seng da jing 僧大經 is as follows: A Seng da jing 僧大經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with an alternate title Fo da seng da jing 佛大僧大經, which is used in later catalogues. The text was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fo da seng da jing as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) included the text as well, in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong's is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the length of the text as six sheets 紙. The Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was seven sheets long. KYL 開元錄 also listed the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing as an extant single Hinayana text, and ascribes it to Juqu Jingsheng. This catalogue also specified the text’s length as seven sheets. Hayashiya maintains that the lengths shown in Jingtai, DZKZM, and KYL are evidence that these catalogues list one and the same text of the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing . Taisho: Hayashiya points out that the Fo da seng da jing 佛大僧大經 T541 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 is six registers and twelve lines long, and that this length matches the length in the earlier catalogues, viz., six sheets in Jingtai and seven in DZKZM and KYL. Based on this, he asserts that this text in the Taisho is the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing listed in the catalogues. He argues that the ascription of the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 must be incorrect, because the style of language in T541 is that of the very early W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, and because it was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that the Seng da jing/Fo da seng da jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0541; 佛說佛大僧大經; Seng da jing 僧大經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Yeqi jing 耶祇經 is as follows: A Yeqi jing 耶祇經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as 耶祇經一巻 (1 juan). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Xieqi jing 邪祇經 as an anonymous scripture. Hayashiya maintains that 邪祇經 must be an error for 耶祇經. The Renshou lu 仁壽録 listed a Yeqi jing 耶祇經, correcting Fajing’s orthography, in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the text must have been extant at the time of Renshou lu, viz., the Sui period, as it is a catalogue of extant scriptures 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 included the scripture (again with the mistaken orthography 邪祇經) as a single Hīnayāna text, stating its length as two sheets 紙. The Yeqi jing 耶祇經 is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was extant and three sheets long. KYL 開元錄 also included the Yeqi jing 耶祇經 as an extant single Hīnayāna text, and ascribes it to Juqu Jingsheng. Hayashiya points out that the catalogue shows the length of the text as two sheets, which he claims is odd because, regarding the length of texts, in most cases KYL follows DZKZM that says the scripture was three sheets long. Hayashiya infers that “two sheets” 二紙 in KYL was a scribal error, and should have written “three sheets” 三紙. Taishō: Hayashiya maintains that, judging from the lengths in sheets shown in Jingtai and DZKZM, the Yeqi jing should be just two registers long or slightly shorter if it is included in the Taishō. Then he points out that the Yeqi jing 耶祇經 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in the Taishō (T542) is about five and four-fifths registers long. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taishō is the Yeqi jing that was listed in catalogues from the Sui period. He argues that the ascription of the Yeqi jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, who was active in the Song period, is incorrect, because the style of language in T542 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and also because the title was already listed in the Dao'an's catalogue. He concludes that the Yeqi jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, since there is no evidence to ascribe it to any particular translators. |
723-724 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Yeqi jing 耶祇經 is as follows: A Yeqi jing 耶祇經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as 耶祇經一巻 (1 juan). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Xieqi jing 邪祇經 as an anonymous scripture. Hayashiya maintains that 邪祇經 must be an error for 耶祇經. The Renshou lu 仁壽録 listed a Yeqi jing 耶祇經, correcting Fajing’s orthography, in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the text must have been extant at the time of Renshou lu, viz., the Sui period, as it is a catalogue of extant scriptures 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 included the scripture (again with the mistaken orthography 邪祇經) as a single Hinayana text, stating its length as two sheets 紙. The Yeqi jing 耶祇經 is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also claimed that the scripture was extant and three sheets long. KYL 開元錄 also included the Yeqi jing 耶祇經 as an extant single Hinayana text, and ascribes it to Juqu Jingsheng. Hayashiya points out that the catalogue shows the length of the text as two sheets, which he claims is odd because, regarding the length of texts, in most cases KYL follows DZKZM that says the scripture was three sheets long. Hayashiya infers that “two sheets” 二紙 in KYL was a scribal error, and should have written “three sheets” 三紙. Taisho: Hayashiya maintains that, judging from the lengths in sheets shown in Jingtai and DZKZM, the Yeqi jing should be just two registers long or slightly shorter if it is included in the Taisho. Then he points out that the Yeqi jing 耶祇經 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in the Taisho (T542) is about five and four-fifths registers long. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taisho is the Yeqi jing that was listed in catalogues from the Sui period. He argues that the ascription of the Yeqi jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, who was active in the Song period, is incorrect, because the style of language in T542 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and also because the title was already listed in the Dao'an's catalogue. He concludes that the Yeqi jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, since there is no evidence to ascribe it to any particular translators. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0542; 佛說耶祇經; Yeqi jing 耶祇經 |
|
A Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, although Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records it as translated by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 and shows the date of composition as the Wei 魏 period. This date does not make sense if Dharmarakṣa was the translator. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu lists the same item with the translator as Fachang 法場. LDSBJ 三寶記 follows this ascription. Hayashiya maintains that as Fachang 法場 lived during the Latter (N.) Wei 後魏, the name Dharmarakṣa = Fahu 法護 in Fajing is highly likely to be a misspelling of Fachang 法場. Hayashiya identifies Fashang's catalogue 法上錄 as the initial source of the view that Fachang 法場 was the translator of the Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經 or the Bianyi zhangzhezi suowen jing 辯意長者子所問經. However, if the translator was Fachang 法場, the text cannot be the one listed by Dao'an. Thus, either Dao'an and the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 are referring to different texts, or at least one of the two catalogues is incorrect. Hayashiya argues that there is no record of alternate translations of a Bianyi jing 辯意經. The text has survived in the Taishō ascribed to 法場. Hayashiya points out that, judging from its style, it is clear that the text was produced in Dao'an's time or earlier, and cannot be by Fachang 法場. This being so, the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 must have been wrong in ascribing it to Fachang. Thus, the extant Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經 should be taken as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and the Bianyi zhangzhezi suowen jing 辯意長者子所問經 translated by Fachang is probably not extant. Hayashiya also cites the KYL 開元錄 to show Zhisheng’s bewilderment as to how the text could have been translated by Fachang. |
643-647 |
A Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, although Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records it as translated by Dharmaraksa 竺法護 and shows the date of composition as the Wei 魏 period. This date does not make sense if Dharmaraksa was the translator. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu lists the same item with the translator as Fachang 法場. LDSBJ 三寶記 follows this ascription. Hayashiya maintains that as Fachang 法場 lived during the Latter (N.) Wei 後魏, the name Dharmaraksa = Fahu 法護 in Fajing is highly likely to be a misspelling of Fachang 法場. Hayashiya identifies Fashang's catalogue 法上錄 as the initial source of the view that Fachang 法場 was the translator of the Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經 or the Bianyi zhangzhezi suowen jing 辯意長者子所問經. However, if the translator was Fachang 法場, the text cannot be the one listed by Dao'an. Thus, either Dao'an and the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 are referring to different texts, or at least one of the two catalogues is incorrect. Hayashiya argues that there is no record of alternate translations of a Bianyi jing 辯意經. The text has survived in the Taisho ascribed to 法場. Hayashiya points out that, judging from its style, it is clear that the text was produced in Dao'an's time or earlier, and cannot be by Fachang 法場. This being so, the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 must have been wrong in ascribing it to Fachang. Thus, the extant Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經 should be taken as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and the Bianyi zhangzhezi suowen jing 辯意長者子所問經 translated by Fachang is probably not extant. Hayashiya also cites the KYL 開元錄 to show Zhisheng’s bewilderment as to how the text could have been translated by Fachang. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0544; *Pratibhanamati-pariprccha; Zhangzhe Bianyi jing 長者辯意經; 辯意長者子經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of scriptures from the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經錄: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya claims that, since the Anan wei gudao zhou jing and the Modeng nü jing are the same text, one of them should be excised. He also maintains that the Modeng nü jing is not An Shigao's translation, and hence we should take the Anan wei gudao zhou jing in the catalogue of alternate translations from Guanzhong 關中異經錄 as a reliable record, and discard the Modeng nü jing ascribed to An Shigao. The text of the Anan wei gudao zhou jing is not of the San Qin 三秦 period. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that it is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya adds that, in order to examine the issues surrounding this text properly, it is necessary to consider some other related texts as well. This task is done in the aforementioned Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 14. |
1104-1106 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of scriptures from the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經錄: An Anan wei gudao zhou jing 阿難爲蠱道呪經 is listed in this catalogue (with an alternate title, Anan wei gudao suo zhou jing 阿難爲蠱道所呪經) , and was extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also listed a Mozou nu jing 摩鄒女經 and Modeng nu jing 摩鄧女經 in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Hayashiya claims that "Mozou nu jing" is a misspelling of "Modeng nu jing". He also maintains that this Modeng nu jing is the same as the Anan wei gudao zhou jing 阿難爲蠱道呪經, and survives as the Modeng nu jing 摩鄧女經 T551. Sengyou, however, saw the Modeng nu jing (written Mozou~ 摩鄒~), but did not see a Modeng nu jing entitled Anan wei gudao zhou jing. Because of this, Sengyou did not notice that the two were the same text, and listed them separately. Hayashiya refers to his own 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 14 for further details of the issues concerning the Modeng nu jing. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists Modeng nu jing 摩登女經, with Modeng nu jing 摩鄧女經 and Anan wei gudao suo zhou jing 阿難爲蠱道所呪經 as alternate titles. Yancong and Jingtai followed Jingtai in this regard. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ shows the Modeng nu jing 摩鄧女經 and the Mozou nu jing摩鄒女經 as alternate titles for the same text, but did not mention the Anan wei gudao zhou jing at all. It regards the text as An Shigao's 安世高’s translation. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: DZKZM lists the Modeng nu jing 摩登女經 as a retranslation of a Hinayana scripture 小乗經重譯, with alternate titles Modeng nu jing 摩鄧女經 and Anan wei gudao nu huo jing 阿難爲蠱道女惑經, making it clear again that "Anan wei gudao zhou jing" is just an alternate title for the Modeng nu jing. KYL 開元錄: Following DZKZM , KYL lists the Modeng nu jing 摩鄧女經 with Mozou nu jing 摩鄒女經 and Anan wei gudao nu huo jing 阿難爲蠱道女惑經 as alternate titles, classifying it as An Shigao's translation. However, it also lists the Anan wei gudao zhou jing separately as an anonymous scripture of the San Qin 三秦 period. Hayashiya claims that, since the Anan wei gudao zhou jing and the Modeng nu jing are the same text, one of them should be excised. He also maintains that the Modeng nu jing is not An Shigao's translation, and hence we should take the Anan wei gudao zhou jing in the catalogue of alternate translations from Guanzhong 關中異經錄 as a reliable record, and discard the Modeng nu jing ascribed to An Shigao. The text of the Anan wei gudao zhou jing is not of the San Qin 三秦 period. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that it is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya adds that, in order to examine the issues surrounding this text properly, it is necessary to consider some other related texts as well. This task is done in the aforementioned Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 14. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0551; 佛說摩鄧女經; 阿難爲蠱道所呪經; *Matangi-sutra, *Sardulakarnavadana; 阿難爲蠱道女惑經; 摩登女經; 阿難爲蠱道呪經 T0552; 阿難爲蠱道所呪經; 阿難爲蠱道女惑經; 阿難爲蠱道呪經; 佛說摩登女解形中六事經; 摩登女經 |
|
The Wu muzi jing 五母子經is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Other than this text, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists a text titled Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate [versions of the same] scriptures in the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經録 . Later catalogues describe the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as a retranslation 重出 of the Wu muzi jing 五母子經, although Sengyou did not say anything about the relation between the two texts because the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 was lost in his time. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as duplicate translations 重出 of the same text. Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu used the peculiar term chongchu 重出 because at least some of the editors of Fajing saw both texts and found significant differences between the two with regard to the content, while their stories and vocabulary are almost the same. Hayashiya claims further that this peculiar relation between the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing explains the fact that Dao’an included the Shamiluo jing in his Guanzhong catalogue of alternate scriptures 關中異經録: Although the Shamiluo jing was popular in some places in Dao’an’s time and could be considered as the same text as the Wu muzi jing, its content differed noticeably from that of the Wu muzi jing, so Dao’an classified the Shamiluo jing as a text known only in the Guanzhong 關中 area. After Fajing, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu followed Fajing’s description of those two texts, and Jingtai 靜泰錄 stated that both were two sheets 紙 long. It is clear that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluojing were extant between the Sui and the Tang, while considered anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記classified the Wu muzi jing 五母子經 as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as an anonymous scripture of the the San Qin 三秦 period. Hayashiya maintains that LDSBJ could happen to be right regarding the Shamiluo jing (if the San Qin period is taken to mean the early Qin), but the ascription of the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian is wrong. It is wrong because LDSBJ does not show any reason for the ascription, and the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Wu muzi jing is clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ and ascribes the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian. Furthermore, it regards the Shamiluo jing as a translation by *Dharmakṣema 曇摩讖. Hayashiya claims that this ascription must have been a mistake. KYL 開元錄 pointed out this mistake, according to Hayashiya, but KYL followed LDSBJ overall, and so must also be corrected. The lengths of both the surviving Wu muzi jing 五母子經 T555 and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 T750 are roughly the same (two sheets 紙 long) as that recorded in catalogues such as Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL. There are two Wu muzi jing in the Taishō, the Ming 明 version and the Korean 麗 version, so it is not immediately clear which one is the one listed in those catalogues, but we can be sure that it is one of the two. Hayashiya compares the three texts - the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing – and makes following observations: It is clear the two Wu muzi jing have developed from one and the same text. However, it is not clear whether the Ming version was produced by simplifying the Korean version, or the Korean version was produced by amplifying the Ming version. Similar things can be said about the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing. Not only do the two titles share the same story, but they also share a considerable amount of vocabulary. This being so, the differences between the two are likely to be the result of the processes of transmission and recitation. Alternatively, even if the two were composed separately, probably the one composed later just used the previous version, with some changes. This close similarity explains Fajing’s description of the two as "alternate translations" chongchu 重出. It is difficult to determine that which of the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing was composed first, although Hayashiya speculates that the Shamiluo jing could be older, based on the fact that the text takes shami 沙彌 as Shamiluo 沙彌羅, and misunderstands Shamiluo as a personal name. Hayashiya claims that the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing are different variations of the same text, and even if one of them is actually a newer translation using a new original, it must be considered as a simple revision of the previous translation/s. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that, for the purposes of the history of translated texts, only one of the three should suffice, and the other two would be dispensable. However, Hayashiya proposes to leave the two titles as they are, since there are indeed differences among the three versions, and the oldest has not been identified. The vocabulary and tone of both texts should place them in the early W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Further, given that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing had already been separated by the time of Dao’an, the date of composition of the two titles is probably about the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. |
845-860 |
The Wu muzi jing 五母子經is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Other than this text, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists a text titled Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate [versions of the same] scriptures in the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經録 . Later catalogues describe the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as a retranslation 重出 of the Wu muzi jing 五母子經, although Sengyou did not say anything about the relation between the two texts because the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 was lost in his time. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as duplicate translations 重出 of the same text. Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu used the peculiar term chongchu 重出 because at least some of the editors of Fajing saw both texts and found significant differences between the two with regard to the content, while their stories and vocabulary are almost the same. Hayashiya claims further that this peculiar relation between the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing explains the fact that Dao’an included the Shamiluo jing in his Guanzhong catalogue of alternate scriptures 關中異經録: Although the Shamiluo jing was popular in some places in Dao’an’s time and could be considered as the same text as the Wu muzi jing, its content differed noticeably from that of the Wu muzi jing, so Dao’an classified the Shamiluo jing as a text known only in the Guanzhong 關中 area. After Fajing, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu followed Fajing’s description of those two texts, and Jingtai 靜泰錄 stated that both were two sheets 紙 long. It is clear that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluojing were extant between the Sui and the Tang, while considered anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記classified the Wu muzi jing 五母子經 as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as an anonymous scripture of the the San Qin 三秦 period. Hayashiya maintains that LDSBJ could happen to be right regarding the Shamiluo jing (if the San Qin period is taken to mean the early Qin), but the ascription of the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian is wrong. It is wrong because LDSBJ does not show any reason for the ascription, and the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Wu muzi jing is clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ and ascribes the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian. Furthermore, it regards the Shamiluo jing as a translation by *Dharmaksema 曇摩讖. Hayashiya claims that this ascription must have been a mistake. KYL 開元錄 pointed out this mistake, according to Hayashiya, but KYL followed LDSBJ overall, and so must also be corrected. The lengths of both the surviving Wu muzi jing 五母子經 T555 and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 T750 are roughly the same (two sheets 紙 long) as that recorded in catalogues such as Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL. There are two Wu muzi jing in the Taisho, the Ming 明 version and the Korean 麗 version, so it is not immediately clear which one is the one listed in those catalogues, but we can be sure that it is one of the two. Hayashiya compares the three texts - the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing – and makes following observations: It is clear the two Wu muzi jing have developed from one and the same text. However, it is not clear whether the Ming version was produced by simplifying the Korean version, or the Korean version was produced by amplifying the Ming version. Similar things can be said about the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing. Not only do the two titles share the same story, but they also share a considerable amount of vocabulary. This being so, the differences between the two are likely to be the result of the processes of transmission and recitation. Alternatively, even if the two were composed separately, probably the one composed later just used the previous version, with some changes. This close similarity explains Fajing’s description of the two as "alternate translations" chongchu 重出. It is difficult to determine that which of the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing was composed first, although Hayashiya speculates that the Shamiluo jing could be older, based on the fact that the text takes shami 沙彌 as Shamiluo 沙彌羅, and misunderstands Shamiluo as a personal name. Hayashiya claims that the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing are different variations of the same text, and even if one of them is actually a newer translation using a new original, it must be considered as a simple revision of the previous translation/s. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that, for the purposes of the history of translated texts, only one of the three should suffice, and the other two would be dispensable. However, Hayashiya proposes to leave the two titles as they are, since there are indeed differences among the three versions, and the oldest has not been identified. The vocabulary and tone of both texts should place them in the early W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Further, given that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing had already been separated by the time of Dao’an, the date of composition of the two titles is probably about the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0555; 五母子經 T0750; 沙彌羅經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Wugou xian jing 無垢賢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Wugou xiannü jing 無垢賢女經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included in its " Mahāyāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue" 大乗修多羅藏錄 the following five titles as alternate translations of the same text: Zhuan nü shen jing 轉女身經 Among these titles, Taizang jing 胎藏經 is already listed in the group of texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 in CSZJJ; Tai zhong nü jing 胎中女經 (Fu zhong nü ting jing) is in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, which is also a part of CSZJJ; and Bu zhuang jiao nü jing 不莊校女經 is in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, another part of CSZJJ. Except for the Zhuan nü shen jing 轉女身經 the Fu zhong nü ting jing and 腹中女聽經, the above listed titles in Fajing came from CSZJJ. However, Hayashiya points out that there are considerable discrepancies between later catalogues concerning records of those titles, and that the relations between those records are also complicated. For example, LDSBJ does not include the Wugou xiannü jing; ascribes the Zhuan nu shen jing to Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多; ascribes the Fu zhong nü ting jing (with the alternate title Bu zhuang jiao nü jing) to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖; ascribes the Taizang jing to Dharmarakṣa; and ascribes the Bu zhuang jiao nü jing to Zhi Qian 支謙. Hayashiya maintains that, in such a situation, it is not possible to examine the ascription of the Wugou xian jing 無垢賢經 only, without discussing the other titles in the same group as well. Thus, he refers to his own Muku kennyo kyō iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū 無垢賢女經異譯經類の研究 for further details about the ascriptions of the Wugou xuan jing and related titles. |
905-906 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Wugou xian jing 無垢賢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Wugou xiannu jing 無垢賢女經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included in its " Mahayana sutrapitaka catalogue" 大乗修多羅藏錄 the following five titles as alternate translations of the same text: Zhuan nu shen jing 轉女身經 Wugou xiannu jing 無垢賢女經 Fu zhong nu ting jing 腹中女聽經 Taizang jing 胎藏經 Bu zhuang jiao nu jing 不莊校女經 Among these titles, Taizang jing 胎藏經 is already listed in the group of texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護 in CSZJJ; Tai zhong nu jing 胎中女經 (Fu zhong nu ting jing) is in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, which is also a part of CSZJJ; and Bu zhuang jiao nu jing 不莊校女經 is in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, another part of CSZJJ. Except for the Zhuan nu shen jing 轉女身經 the Fu zhong nu ting jing and 腹中女聽經, the above listed titles in Fajing came from CSZJJ. However, Hayashiya points out that there are considerable discrepancies between later catalogues concerning records of those titles, and that the relations between those records are also complicated. For example, LDSBJ does not include the Wugou xiannu jing; ascribes the Zhuan nu shen jing to Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多; ascribes the Fu zhong nu ting jing (with the alternate title Bu zhuang jiao nu jing) to *Dharmaksema 曇無讖; ascribes the Taizang jing to Dharmaraksa; and ascribes the Bu zhuang jiao nu jing to Zhi Qian 支謙. Hayashiya maintains that, in such a situation, it is not possible to examine the ascription of the Wugou xian jing 無垢賢經 only, without discussing the other titles in the same group as well. Thus, he refers to his own Muku kennyo kyo iyaku kyorui no kenkyu 無垢賢女經異譯經類の研究 for further details about the ascriptions of the Wugou xuan jing and related titles. T0562; 佛說無垢賢女經; 無垢賢經 |
|
A Tai zhong nü jing 胎中女經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Sengyou 僧祐 classifies it as a lost text in his time. However, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu lists it, with the alternate title Fu zhong nü ting jing 腹中女聽經, as a text recited by Fahua 法化 in the S. Song 南齊 period. Hayashiya claims that probably this text is the same as the anonymous Tai zhong nü jing 胎中女經 shown by Dao'an. Hayashiya refers to his own work, Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 11 for further support and discussions. According to him, this text is extant in the Taishō as the Fu zhong nü ting jing 腹中女聽經 T563. LDSBJ 三寶記 and many catalogues that came after it, including KYL 開元錄, recorded this text as translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖. Hayashiya claims that this ascription is wrong and the text is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Again, he refers to his own Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 11 for detailed support. |
775-778, 788 |
A Tai zhong nu jing 胎中女經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Sengyou 僧祐 classifies it as a lost text in his time. However, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu lists it, with the alternate title Fu zhong nu ting jing 腹中女聽經, as a text recited by Fahua 法化 in the S. Song 南齊 period. Hayashiya claims that probably this text is the same as the anonymous Tai zhong nu jing 胎中女經 shown by Dao'an. Hayashiya refers to his own work, Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 11 for further support and discussions. According to him, this text is extant in the Taisho as the Fu zhong nu ting jing 腹中女聽經 T563. LDSBJ 三寶記 and many catalogues that came after it, including KYL 開元錄, recorded this text as translated by *Dharmaksema 曇無讖. Hayashiya claims that this ascription is wrong and the text is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Again, he refers to his own Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 11 for detailed support. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0563; Tai zhong nu jing 胎中女經; 佛說腹中女聽經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the attribution of T570 Shengjian, i..e Fajian, must be rejected, and the text is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
947-950 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Xianshou furen jing 賢首夫人經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing also regarded the Xianshou furen jing 賢首夫人經 (as an alternate title of Xianshou jing 賢首經) as an anonymous scripture. Yancong did the same. LDSBJ 三寶記: However, LDSBJ, and other cataloguers after that, listed the text as translated by Shengjian 聖堅. Since it is chronologically impossible that a work of Shengjian would be listed in Dao'an's catalogue, Hayashiya maintains that what LDSBJ meant by Shengjian is in fact Fajian 法堅 of the W. Jin 西晋 period, who was confused with Shengjian 聖堅 in and after LDSBJ. Thus, Hayashiya compares the vocabulary of the text of surviving Xianshou jing 賢首經 T570 and the vocabulary that Fajian usually uses. He observes that there is some similarity between the two, and so date of composition of T570 should be the same as or close to Fajian. However, some important terms and phrases are translated differently in T570: For example, 賢首經 uses 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 where Fajian uses 無上正眞道. Further, the tone of 賢首經 is also significantly different from that of Fajian. Hence, Hayashiya maintains that T570 is not by Fajian. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the attribution of T570 Shengjian, i..e Fajian, must be rejected, and the text is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0570; Xianshou furen jing 賢首夫人經; 佛說賢首經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: LDSBJ 三寶記: KYL 開元錄 and the Taishō: |
1002-1003 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing 長者法志妻經 is listed in this catalogue and was extant at the time of Sengyou. There is also a Fazhi nu jing 法志女經 listed in this catalogue, and Hayashiya thinks that there is a possibility that the two titles refer to the same text, but it is not possible to determine. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu also listed the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing and the Fazhi nu jing separately. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu followed Fajing and classified the Zhangzhe Fazhi qi jing as an independent Mahayana text, and the Fazhi nu jing as a lost text. Hayashiya points out that the view of these two catalogues that the two titles are different texts are not reliable, because the Fazhi nu jing had been lost since the time of Sengyou and its content is not known. However, Hayashiya accepts that we should keep the two titles separate, since there is no evidence that they are the same text, either, and the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country listed them separately anyway. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ omitted both titles. This is clearly not justified. KYL 開元錄 and the Taisho: KYL listed them again, regarding both as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period. Hayashiya claims that the date of composition should be the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since the surviving text T572 has a vocabulary and tone that are clearly of that period, not of the Liang 涼 period. This text was well-known especially in the Liangzhou 涼州 area, because the title was included in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0572; 佛說長者法志妻經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄: KYL 開元錄: Taishō: However, Hayashiya claims that T579 is different from the Jing xing jing 浄行經 in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. This is because the vocabulary T579 uses is rather new, influenced quite heavily by Kumārajīva, and the tone is also new. T579 therefore cannot be the text shown in the recompilation of (Dao'an's) catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country. Hayashiya infers that, since both texts were of two scrolls, probably the same or a very similar 同一類 text was translated again in or after Kumārajīva’s time, after the first Jing xing jing was lost. Thus, the Jing xing jing and the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 (or the Youpoyi jing xing jing 優婆夷浄行經) are actually different texts. Hayashiya concludes that the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 should be listed separately from the Jing xing jing, as an anonymous scripture of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period. The Jing xing jing, on the other hand, 浄行經 should be kept as a non-extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
997-1001 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Jing xing jing 浄行經 is listed in this catalogue as two scrolls 巻 in volume, and was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Youpoyi jing xing jing 優婆夷浄行經 as an anonymous Mahayana text with the alternate title Jing xing jing 浄行經, also two scrolls in volume. The Youpoyi jing xing jing in Fajing and the Jing xing jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 are the same size, two-scrolls, and the alternate name of the former is Jing xing jing. This being the case, the Youpoyi jing xing jing and the Jing xing jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country might be thought to be identical, but Hayashiya rejects this possibility for reasons outlined below. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong listed the same title, Youpoyi jing xing jing, two juan in length. However, Yancong classified it as an independent Hinayana text. Thus, there is an issue whether this Youpoyi jing xing jing was a Hinayana text or a Mahayana one. Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄: Jingtai says that the Youpoyi jing xing jing is thirty sheets 紙 long. DTNDL also lists the text as having the same length, while classifying it as a Hinayana text. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists a Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 as thirty-two sheets long. It is classified as an independent Mahayana text. Hayashiya thinks that Jingtai, DTNDL and KYL refer to the same text, because those catalogues show the same length of the text. He also claims that the text is a Mahayana text and Yancong and some other catalogues are mistaken in classifying it as a Hinayana text. Taisho: There is a Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 extant in the Taisho (T579), which is thirty three and a half registers 段 long. Hayashiya claims that since the text contains quite a few verses, the actual length could be roughly thirty sheets long. For this reason, he judges that this text in the Taisho is the same one listed in catalogues since Fajing. However, Hayashiya claims that T579 is different from the Jing xing jing 浄行經 in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. This is because the vocabulary T579 uses is rather new, influenced quite heavily by Kumarajiva, and the tone is also new. T579 therefore cannot be the text shown in the recompilation of (Dao'an's) catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country. Hayashiya infers that, since both texts were of two scrolls, probably the same or a very similar 同一類 text was translated again in or after Kumarajiva’s time, after the first Jing xing jing was lost. Thus, the Jing xing jing and the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 (or the Youpoyi jing xing jing 優婆夷浄行經) are actually different texts. Hayashiya concludes that the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 should be listed separately from the Jing xing jing, as an anonymous scripture of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period. The Jing xing jing, on the other hand, 浄行經 should be kept as a non-extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0579; 優婆夷淨行法門經; 優婆夷浄行經 |
|
A Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經 is listed in Sengyou's 僧祐 recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 and was extant in the time of Sengyou. There is also a similar title, Yichu Sunduoyezhe 異出孫陀耶致經 in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, but it was an unseen text and does not appear in later catalogues, so it is safe to set this text aside in discussing the Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經. Since Dao'an stated that the Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing was from the Madhyamāgama 中阿含, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed it as an alternate translation of the Madhyamāgama 中阿含. However, the content of this text does not exist in the extant Madhyamāgama 中阿含 as we have it today, translated by Saṃghadeva 僧伽提婆. Fajing does not say where in MĀ he found the supposed parallel to the text. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 give the same description as Fajing, and Jingtai states that the text is three sheets 紙 long. We can see therefore that the text was extant down to the time of Jingtai 靜泰錄, while classified as anonymous. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 classified this Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing as a translation by Zhi Qian. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and then KYL 開元錄 adopted the same ascription. This ascription is groundless and should be rejected. The Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經 was extant, and Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL record the length as three sheets 紙. The Sunduoyezhi jing 孫多耶致經 T582 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙 has about that length. Hayashiya maintains that this text in Taishō must be the same Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經 recorded by Dao’an. Its vocabulary and tone are of the Latter Han 後漢 period, but clearly not that of Zhi Qian. Thus, this text should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. |
837-839 |
A Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經 is listed in Sengyou's 僧祐 recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 and was extant in the time of Sengyou. There is also a similar title, Yichu Sunduoyezhe 異出孫陀耶致經 in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, but it was an unseen text and does not appear in later catalogues, so it is safe to set this text aside in discussing the Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經. Since Dao'an stated that the Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing was from the Madhyamagama 中阿含, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed it as an alternate translation of the Madhyamagama 中阿含. However, the content of this text does not exist in the extant Madhyamagama 中阿含 as we have it today, translated by Samghadeva 僧伽提婆. Fajing does not say where in MA he found the supposed parallel to the text. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 give the same description as Fajing, and Jingtai states that the text is three sheets 紙 long. We can see therefore that the text was extant down to the time of Jingtai 靜泰錄, while classified as anonymous. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 classified this Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing as a translation by Zhi Qian. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and then KYL 開元錄 adopted the same ascription. This ascription is groundless and should be rejected. The Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經 was extant, and Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL record the length as three sheets 紙. The Sunduoyezhi jing 孫多耶致經 T582 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙 has about that length. Hayashiya maintains that this text in Taisho must be the same Fanzhi Sunduoyezhi jing 梵志孫陀耶致經 recorded by Dao’an. Its vocabulary and tone are of the Latter Han 後漢 period, but clearly not that of Zhi Qian. Thus, this text should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0582; 佛說孫多耶致經; *Sundarika-sutra; 梵志孫陀耶致經 |
|
The Hei shi fanshi jing 黑氏梵志經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and other catalogues down to Jingtai 靜泰錄 also regarded this text as anonymous. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 listed this text as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙. Hayashiya points out that, although LDSBJ speaks as if the ascription is based upon the "separate catalogue" 別錄, if the 別錄 had really said that the Hei shi fanshi jing 黑氏梵志經 was Zhi Qian's 支謙 translation, it would have been reflected in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which is not the case. Hence, like other attributions made by LDSBJ, the attribution of the Hei shi fanshi jing must be rejected as groundless. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄 classified this text as by Zhi Qian following LDSBJ. The text was lost at the time of DZKZM and appears to have been found again by the time of KYL. The surviving Hei shi fanshi jing 黑氏梵志經 T583 should be the one listed in KYL, because the length shown in KYL is the same as that of T583. The vocabulary and tone of T583 are clearly of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period, but not in the style of Zhi Qian. Thus, the text should be regarded as an anonymous scripture in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
847-849 |
The Hei shi fanshi jing 黑氏梵志經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and other catalogues down to Jingtai 靜泰錄 also regarded this text as anonymous. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 listed this text as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙. Hayashiya points out that, although LDSBJ speaks as if the ascription is based upon the "separate catalogue" 別錄, if the 別錄 had really said that the Hei shi fanshi jing 黑氏梵志經 was Zhi Qian's 支謙 translation, it would have been reflected in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which is not the case. Hence, like other attributions made by LDSBJ, the attribution of the Hei shi fanshi jing must be rejected as groundless. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄 classified this text as by Zhi Qian following LDSBJ. The text was lost at the time of DZKZM and appears to have been found again by the time of KYL. The surviving Hei shi fanshi jing 黑氏梵志經 T583 should be the one listed in KYL, because the length shown in KYL is the same as that of T583. The vocabulary and tone of T583 are clearly of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period, but not in the style of Zhi Qian. Thus, the text should be regarded as an anonymous scripture in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0583; 佛說黑氏梵志經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of scriptures from the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: There is extant a Tianwang taizi Biluo jing 天王太子辟羅經 T596. Its is slightly shorter than one and a half registers in length, which is just about two sheets long, the length shown by KYL. Its content fits the title, and its vocabulary and tone are of the W. Jin 西晋 period or around that period. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the surviving T596 is the same as the Taizi Biluo jing listed in Dao'ans Guanzhong catalogue 新集安公關中異經錄 and KYL. The text of three sheets listed in Jingtai should be either some text different from the actual T596, or the actual text, but shown with an incorrect length. KYL is correct about the length of the text, but not about its date of composition. T596 is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, not of the San Qin 三秦 period. |
1111-1113 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations of scriptures from the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經錄: A Taizi Biluo jing 太子辟羅經 is listed in this catalogue, and was already lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed this text with the title Tianwang taizi Biluo jing 天王太子辟羅經, as an anonymous scripture. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: The text seems to have been rediscovered in the Sui 隋 period, since Yancong included it in the category of single Mahayana texts 大乗經單本. Jingtai gives it the same classification, with its length specified as three sheets 紙. LDSBJ 三寶記 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: LDSBJ, and DZKZM following it, list neither the Taizi Biluo jing nor the Tianwang taizi Biluo jing. Hayashiya maintains that this omission is not justified, because the text was listed by Dao’an and re-discovered in the Sui 隋 period, and is still extant today. KYL 開元錄: KYL included this text as an anonymous scripture of the San Qin 三秦 period. This catalogue also listed the Tianwang taizi Buluo jing 天王太子辟羅經 in the category of extant single Mahayana texts 有本大乗經單譯. Hayashiya points out that the length of the text is shown as two sheets in KYL, which is different from three sheets stated by Jingtai. He claims that this is unusual, because normally KYL shows a slightly longer page count, not a shorter one, as in this case. There is extant a Tianwang taizi Biluo jing 天王太子辟羅經 T596. Its is slightly shorter than one and a half registers in length, which is just about two sheets long, the length shown by KYL. Its content fits the title, and its vocabulary and tone are of the W. Jin 西晋 period or around that period. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the surviving T596 is the same as the Taizi Biluo jing listed in Dao'ans Guanzhong catalogue 新集安公關中異經錄 and KYL. The text of three sheets listed in Jingtai should be either some text different from the actual T596, or the actual text, but shown with an incorrect length. KYL is correct about the length of the text, but not about its date of composition. T596 is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, not of the San Qin 三秦 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0596; 太子辟羅經; 佛說天王太子辟羅經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya points out that the descriptions in LDSBJ and KYL are groundless, and that the vocabulary and tone of the Nan longwang jing = Longwang xiongdi jing T597 are clearly not that of Zhi Qian, although they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. They are not of the Song 宋 period either, and hence the translator cannot be Guṇabhadra. Hayashiya concludes that, although many different names have been given to it, there was only ever one Nan longwang jing, viz., the one listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. The Mulian xiang longwang jing in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures should be excised as a redundant entry. The text is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, well-known in the the Liangzhou 涼州 area. All the other attributions given by later catalogues are groundless. |
1068-1071 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Nan longwang jing 難龍王經 is listed in this catalogue was extant at the time of Sengyou. There is also a Mulian xiang longwang jing 目連降龍王經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. This text was also extant in Sengyou’s time, so the Nan longwang jing 難龍王經 and the Mulian xiang wang jing 目連降龍王經 might appear to be different texts. However, Hayashiya argues that they might well be the same text, and it was Sengyou’s mistake to list them separately. This is because both titles, as well as some other alternate titles, suit well the content of the surviving Nan longwang jing, viz., Longwang xiongdi jing 龍王兄弟經 T597. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows only one text with those titles, by listing Longwang xiongdi jing 龍王兄弟經 as an anonymous Hinayana text with Xiang longwang jing 降龍王經 and Nan longwang jing 難龍王經 as alternate titles. Yancong follows Fajing in this regard. Thus, Nan longwang jing 難龍王經 and Mulian xiang longwang jing 目連降龍王經 were widely considered as the same text in the Sui 隋 period, consistent with Hayashiya’s observation above. LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄: LDSBJ listed the Nan longwang jing and the Mulian xiang longwang jing 目連降龍王經 separately, showing the translators as Zhi Qian and Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅 respectively. KYL follows LDSBJ in ths regard, adding that the Nan longwang jing, viz., the Longwang xiongdi jing, as extant, and the Mulian xiang longwang jing as lost. Hayashiya points out that the descriptions in LDSBJ and KYL are groundless, and that the vocabulary and tone of the Nan longwang jing = Longwang xiongdi jing T597 are clearly not that of Zhi Qian, although they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. They are not of the Song 宋 period either, and hence the translator cannot be Gunabhadra. Hayashiya concludes that, although many different names have been given to it, there was only ever one Nan longwang jing, viz., the one listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. The Mulian xiang longwang jing in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures should be excised as a redundant entry. The text is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, well-known in the the Liangzhou 涼州 area. All the other attributions given by later catalogues are groundless. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0597; 龍王兄弟經 |
|
The Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, and was extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. Fajing recorded this text as an alternate translation from the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含, and in this, was followed by Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄. All of these catalogues agree that it is an anonymous scripture. The text has survived as the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 T604. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists this Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects the reasons LDSBJ offers for this ascription as groundless. However, examining the text, Hayashiya finds that the vocabulary and tone of this text has a striking similarity to that of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 T605, which was identified as An Shigao’s work in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya refers to his own An Seikō no kiden oyobi yakukyō no kenkyū 安世高訳の紀傳及び譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明] for detailed discussion on the relationship between these two texts. Hayashiya here rehearses the gist of the argument in that article. According to Hayashiya, the styles of the two texts are so similar that both must have been translated by the same person. Also, since the part of CSZJJ that includes the Chan xing fa xiang jing is taken from Dao’an, and therefore, the claim that the Chan xing fa xiang jing was translated by An Shigao is very reliable. This being the case, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing should also be An Shigao's translation. However, Hayashiya also claims that the vocabulary used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing differs significantly from other works by An Shigao. For example, the phrase "yi shi Fo you" 一時佛遊 is used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing, while An Shigao mostly uses "yi shi Fo zai" 一時佛在. The overall tone of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 is also more sophisticated than that of An Shigao’s other translations. Hayashiya suggets three possible explanations for the above situation. 1) Dao’an was wrong in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's translation; 2) the Chan xing fa xiang jing that was regarded as An Shigao's was a different text from the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing today in the Taishō, or; 3) An Shigao made some changes in his translation style over time, leading to a considerable difference in vocabulary and style between his earlier works and later works. Hayashiya states that it is difficult to determine which of these hypotheses is most plausible. Still, he tentatively takes (2) as most likely. He reasons that An Shigao’s translations have distinctive characteristics, because they are free from influences from other translators, beingthe oldest group of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts [note: An Xuan and Yan Fotiao are also of the same vintage: MR]. Thus, the fact that the style of the Chan xing fa xiang jing is different from that of An Shigao's other translations is significant, because his style is always distinct and clearly noticeable. Also, Hayashiya argues that it is highly unlikely that Dao’an made a mistake in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's. An Shigao might also have changed his style over time, but this view is highly speculative, since in this view, the Chan xing fa xiang jing must be considered to be the only text different from all the other An Shigao translations. Thus, possibility (3) is also unlikely. Hayashiya therefore thinks that the most reasonable scenario is that the Chan xing fa xiang jing that Dao’an classified as by An Shigao was a different text from the version in Taishō, and that older text is lost. Hayashiya points out that it is likely that Dao’an would have classified the Chan xing fa xiang jing as anonymous if the text he saw had been the same as the extant Taishō Chan xing fa xiang jing, since Dao’an classified the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing, which should have been translated by the same person as the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing, as anonymous. Thus, he takes the view that there must have existed two Chan xing fa xiang jing: one translated by An Shigao, which is lost today; and the surviving text, an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The date of composition is clear from the style. Accordingly, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 in the Taishō should also be an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han, translated by the same person as the surviving Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經. Nonetheless, Hayashiya admits that his view is not decisive, because there is no record of any such text as a Chan xing fa xiang jing translated by An Shigao. |
792-798 |
The Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, and was extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. Fajing recorded this text as an alternate translation from the Samyuktagama 雜阿含, and in this, was followed by Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄. All of these catalogues agree that it is an anonymous scripture. The text has survived as the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 T604. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists this Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects the reasons LDSBJ offers for this ascription as groundless. However, examining the text, Hayashiya finds that the vocabulary and tone of this text has a striking similarity to that of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 T605, which was identified as An Shigao’s work in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya refers to his own An Seiko no kiden oyobi yakukyo no kenkyu 安世高訳の紀傳及ひ譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明] for detailed discussion on the relationship between these two texts. Hayashiya here rehearses the gist of the argument in that article. According to Hayashiya, the styles of the two texts are so similar that both must have been translated by the same person. Also, since the part of CSZJJ that includes the Chan xing fa xiang jing is taken from Dao’an, and therefore, the claim that the Chan xing fa xiang jing was translated by An Shigao is very reliable. This being the case, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing should also be An Shigao's translation. However, Hayashiya also claims that the vocabulary used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing differs significantly from other works by An Shigao. For example, the phrase "yi shi Fo you" 一時佛遊 is used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing, while An Shigao mostly uses "yi shi Fo zai" 一時佛在. The overall tone of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 is also more sophisticated than that of An Shigao’s other translations. Hayashiya suggets three possible explanations for the above situation. 1) Dao’an was wrong in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's translation; 2) the Chan xing fa xiang jing that was regarded as An Shigao's was a different text from the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing today in the Taisho, or; 3) An Shigao made some changes in his translation style over time, leading to a considerable difference in vocabulary and style between his earlier works and later works. Hayashiya states that it is difficult to determine which of these hypotheses is most plausible. Still, he tentatively takes (2) as most likely. He reasons that An Shigao’s translations have distinctive characteristics, because they are free from influences from other translators, beingthe oldest group of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts [note: An Xuan and Yan Fotiao are also of the same vintage: MR]. Thus, the fact that the style of the Chan xing fa xiang jing is different from that of An Shigao's other translations is significant, because his style is always distinct and clearly noticeable. Also, Hayashiya argues that it is highly unlikely that Dao’an made a mistake in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's. An Shigao might also have changed his style over time, but this view is highly speculative, since in this view, the Chan xing fa xiang jing must be considered to be the only text different from all the other An Shigao translations. Thus, possibility (3) is also unlikely. Hayashiya therefore thinks that the most reasonable scenario is that the Chan xing fa xiang jing that Dao’an classified as by An Shigao was a different text from the version in Taisho, and that older text is lost. Hayashiya points out that it is likely that Dao’an would have classified the Chan xing fa xiang jing as anonymous if the text he saw had been the same as the extant Taisho Chan xing fa xiang jing, since Dao’an classified the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing, which should have been translated by the same person as the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing, as anonymous. Thus, he takes the view that there must have existed two Chan xing fa xiang jing: one translated by An Shigao, which is lost today; and the surviving text, an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The date of composition is clear from the style. Accordingly, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 in the Taisho should also be an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han, translated by the same person as the surviving Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經. Nonetheless, Hayashiya admits that his view is not decisive, because there is no record of any such text as a Chan xing fa xiang jing translated by An Shigao. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0604; 佛說禪行三十七品經 |
|
The Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, and was extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. Fajing recorded this text as an alternate translation from the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含, and in this, was followed by Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄. All of these catalogues agree that it is an anonymous scripture. The text has survived as the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 T604. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists this Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects the reasons LDSBJ offers for this ascription as groundless. However, examining the text, Hayashiya finds that the vocabulary and tone of this text has a striking similarity to that of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 T605, which was identified as An Shigao’s work in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya refers to his own An Seikō no kiden oyobi yakukyō no kenkyū 安世高訳の紀傳及び譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明] for detailed discussion on the relationship between these two texts. Hayashiya here rehearses the gist of the argument in that article. According to Hayashiya, the styles of the two texts are so similar that both must have been translated by the same person. Also, since the part of CSZJJ that includes the Chan xing fa xiang jing is taken from Dao’an, and therefore, the claim that the Chan xing fa xiang jing was translated by An Shigao is very reliable. This being the case, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing should also be An Shigao's translation. However, Hayashiya also claims that the vocabulary used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing differs significantly from other works by An Shigao. For example, the phrase "yi shi Fo you" 一時佛遊 is used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing, while An Shigao mostly uses "yi shi Fo zai" 一時佛在. The overall tone of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 is also more sophisticated than that of An Shigao’s other translations. Hayashiya suggets three possible explanations for the above situation. 1) Dao’an was wrong in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's translation; 2) the Chan xing fa xiang jing that was regarded as An Shigao's was a different text from the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing today in the Taishō, or; 3) An Shigao made some changes in his translation style over time, leading to a considerable difference in vocabulary and style between his earlier works and later works. Hayashiya states that it is difficult to determine which of these hypotheses is most plausible. Still, he tentatively takes (2) as most likely. He reasons that An Shigao’s translations have distinctive characteristics, because they are free from influences from other translators, being the oldest group of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts [note: An Xuan and Yan Fotiao are also of the same vintage: MR]. Thus, the fact that the style of the Chan xing fa xiang jing is different from that of An Shigao's other translations is significant, because his style is always distinct and clearly noticeable. Also, Hayashiya argues that it is highly unlikely that Dao’an made a mistake in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's. An Shigao might also have changed his style over time, but this view is highly speculative, since in this view, the Chan xing fa xiang jing must be considered to be the only text different from all the other An Shigao translations. Thus, possibility (3) is also unlikely. Hayashiya therefore thinks that the most reasonable scenario is that the Chan xing fa xiang jing that Dao’an classified as by An Shigao was a different text from the version in Taishō, and that older text is lost. Hayashiya points out that it is likely that Dao’an would have classified the Chan xing fa xiang jing as anonymous if the text he saw had been the same as the extant Taishō Chan xing fa xiang jing, since Dao’an classified the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing, which should have been translated by the same person as the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing, as anonymous. Thus, he takes the view that there must have existed two Chan xing fa xiang jing: one translated by An Shigao, which is lost today; and the surviving text, an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The date of composition is clear from the style. Accordingly, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 in the Taishō should also be an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han, translated by the same person as the surviving Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經. Nonetheless, Hayashiya admits that his view is not decisive, because there is no record of any such text as a Chan xing fa xiang jing translated by An Shigao. |
792-798 |
The Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, and was extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. Fajing recorded this text as an alternate translation from the Samyuktagama 雜阿含, and in this, was followed by Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄. All of these catalogues agree that it is an anonymous scripture. The text has survived as the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 T604. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists this Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects the reasons LDSBJ offers for this ascription as groundless. However, examining the text, Hayashiya finds that the vocabulary and tone of this text has a striking similarity to that of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 T605, which was identified as An Shigao’s work in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya refers to his own An Seiko no kiden oyobi yakukyo no kenkyu 安世高訳の紀傳及ひ譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明] for detailed discussion on the relationship between these two texts. Hayashiya here rehearses the gist of the argument in that article. According to Hayashiya, the styles of the two texts are so similar that both must have been translated by the same person. Also, since the part of CSZJJ that includes the Chan xing fa xiang jing is taken from Dao’an, and therefore, the claim that the Chan xing fa xiang jing was translated by An Shigao is very reliable. This being the case, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing should also be An Shigao's translation. However, Hayashiya also claims that the vocabulary used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing differs significantly from other works by An Shigao. For example, the phrase "yi shi Fo you" 一時佛遊 is used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing, while An Shigao mostly uses "yi shi Fo zai" 一時佛在. The overall tone of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 is also more sophisticated than that of An Shigao’s other translations. Hayashiya suggets three possible explanations for the above situation. 1) Dao’an was wrong in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's translation; 2) the Chan xing fa xiang jing that was regarded as An Shigao's was a different text from the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing today in the Taisho, or; 3) An Shigao made some changes in his translation style over time, leading to a considerable difference in vocabulary and style between his earlier works and later works. Hayashiya states that it is difficult to determine which of these hypotheses is most plausible. Still, he tentatively takes (2) as most likely. He reasons that An Shigao’s translations have distinctive characteristics, because they are free from influences from other translators, being the oldest group of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts [note: An Xuan and Yan Fotiao are also of the same vintage: MR]. Thus, the fact that the style of the Chan xing fa xiang jing is different from that of An Shigao's other translations is significant, because his style is always distinct and clearly noticeable. Also, Hayashiya argues that it is highly unlikely that Dao’an made a mistake in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's. An Shigao might also have changed his style over time, but this view is highly speculative, since in this view, the Chan xing fa xiang jing must be considered to be the only text different from all the other An Shigao translations. Thus, possibility (3) is also unlikely. Hayashiya therefore thinks that the most reasonable scenario is that the Chan xing fa xiang jing that Dao’an classified as by An Shigao was a different text from the version in Taisho, and that older text is lost. Hayashiya points out that it is likely that Dao’an would have classified the Chan xing fa xiang jing as anonymous if the text he saw had been the same as the extant Taisho Chan xing fa xiang jing, since Dao’an classified the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing, which should have been translated by the same person as the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing, as anonymous. Thus, he takes the view that there must have existed two Chan xing fa xiang jing: one translated by An Shigao, which is lost today; and the surviving text, an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The date of composition is clear from the style. Accordingly, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 in the Taisho should also be an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han, translated by the same person as the surviving Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經. Nonetheless, Hayashiya admits that his view is not decisive, because there is no record of any such text as a Chan xing fa xiang jing translated by An Shigao. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0605; 禪行法想經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Xiao ["Lesser"] Dao di jing 小道地經 T608 and maintains that it is highly likely to be of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The text is probably not An Shigao's translation, because there are words in T608 that are different from the ones An Shigao normally uses, such as the word 道人 where An Shigao would use 行道者. It is most likely not Zhi Yao's either, since its vocabulary and tone appear to be different from that of the Cheng ju guangming jing 成具光明經, which is established as 支曜’s translation. Hayashiya concludes that since the view that regards the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang and T608 as different texts is mistaken, T608 should not be ascribed to Zhi Yao, and only the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period should be accepted. |
1299-1303 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang 道地經中要語章 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Dao’an regards this text as an offshoot text 別生經 of the Sheng jing 生經. However, Hayashiya thinks that the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang is likely to have been part of what was the original text of the Dao di jing 道地經 T607 translated by An Shigao 安世高. Three of the reasons that Hayashiya thinks so are as follows: First, An Shigao's Dao di jing is the translation of only 7 chapters of the original Dao di jing, which consists of 27 chapters; hence there is a possibility that the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang was one of the untranslated chapters. Second, the names of the chapters of T607 have some similarity to the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang in terms and usage. Third, Sengyou gives an alternate title "Lesser Dao di jing" 小道地經 for the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang. If it is correct to regard the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang as part of the original Dao di jing, Hayashiya argues, the phrase “from 生經” 出生經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations should be seen as a copyist's error for 出道地經. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang and "Lesser Dao di jing", which was an alternate title for the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang in Dao'an's catalogue, as different texts. Hayashiya points out that this ascription is groundless, since Fajing did not see the text referred to by those titles. Nonetheless, Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai did not show the length of the text because the titles were listed as offshoot excerpt texts 別生抄. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ listed the "Lesser Dao di jing" 小道地經 only as translated by Zhi Yao 支曜 in the Latter Han 後漢 period, not mentioning the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang at all. Hayashiya claims that this ascription to Zhi Yao is groundless. KYL 開元錄: KYL followed LDSBJ in listing the Lesser Dao di jing as Zhi Yao's translation. It also listed the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period, while stating that the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang and the Lesser Dao di jing might actually be the same text. Hayashiya suspects that Zhisheng 智昇 avoided disagreeing with almost all the catalogues since Fajing, by asserting that the two should be regarded as the same. Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Xiao ["Lesser"] Dao di jing 小道地經 T608 and maintains that it is highly likely to be of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The text is probably not An Shigao's translation, because there are words in T608 that are different from the ones An Shigao normally uses, such as the word 道人 where An Shigao would use 行道者. It is most likely not Zhi Yao's either, since its vocabulary and tone appear to be different from that of the Cheng ju guangming jing 成具光明經, which is established as 支曜’s translation. Hayashiya concludes that since the view that regards the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang and T608 as different texts is mistaken, T608 should not be ascribed to Zhi Yao, and only the Dao di jing zhong yao yu zhang as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period should be accepted. An Shigao, 安世高 T0608; 道地經中要語章; 小道地經 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如来經 (*Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā) is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing in 2 juan, with the alternate titles Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如来三昧經 and Dunzhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya points out that the Dunzhentuoluo jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支讖 is mentioned in the “He Shoulengyan jing ji” 合首楞嚴經記 (combined preface to [various translations of] the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra) by Zhi Mindu 支敏度, and hence certainly existed. However, according to Hayashiya, Dao’an did not know about that record and did not notice that the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing was *Lokakṣema’s work, although he saw the text. Because of that, in CSZJJ Sengyou commented on the Dunzhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經 in 2 juan ascribed to *Lokakṣema that the text was not included in the category of *Lokakṣema’s works in Dao’an’s catalogue. Sengyou saw the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, but he did not understand that it was the work of *Lokakṣema either, so he classified the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing as extant, while stating that the Dunzhentuoluo jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema was currently lost 今闕. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was influenced by Sengyou, and listed the Dunzhentuo suowen jing 屯眞陀所問經 ascribed to *Lokakṣema in its catalogue of the Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka 小乗修多羅藏錄, while including the the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing in the category of anonymous scriptures 衆經失譯. Despite the way those catalogues dealt with these titles, Hayashiya claims that it is highly likely that *Lokakṣema’s Dunzhentuoluo jing and the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing are one and the same text, as both Dao’an and Sengyou saw only one text, and both of the titles are recorded as in 2 juan. Yancong (仁壽録) discovered that there was only one Dunzhentuoluo jing/ Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, and listed the one ascribed to *Lokakṣema only, excising the anonymous one. LDSBJ also excised the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, and the following catalogues did the same. Hayashiya claims that what those catalogues did is correct, and supports his view further by pointing out that the style and language of the Dunzhentuoluo suowen rulai sanmei jing T624 in the Taishō is undoubtedly that of *Lokakṣema. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that, since there has only ever been one Dunzhentuoluo jing, only the text ascribed *Lokakṣema should be kept, excising the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing. |
625-627 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如来經 (*Drumakinnararaja-pariprccha) is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing in 2 juan, with the alternate titles Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如来三昧經 and Dunzhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya points out that the Dunzhentuoluo jing ascribed to *Lokaksema 支讖 is mentioned in the “He Shoulengyan jing ji” 合首楞嚴經記 (combined preface to [various translations of] the Suramgamasamadhi-sutra) by Zhi Mindu 支敏度, and hence certainly existed. However, according to Hayashiya, Dao’an did not know about that record and did not notice that the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing was *Lokaksema’s work, although he saw the text. Because of that, in CSZJJ Sengyou commented on the Dunzhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經 in 2 juan ascribed to *Lokaksema that the text was not included in the category of *Lokaksema’s works in Dao’an’s catalogue. Sengyou saw the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, but he did not understand that it was the work of *Lokaksema either, so he classified the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing as extant, while stating that the Dunzhentuoluo jing ascribed to *Lokaksema was currently lost 今闕. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was influenced by Sengyou, and listed the Dunzhentuo suowen jing 屯眞陀所問經 ascribed to *Lokaksema in its catalogue of the Hinayana sutrapitaka 小乗修多羅藏錄, while including the the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing in the category of anonymous scriptures 衆經失譯. Despite the way those catalogues dealt with these titles, Hayashiya claims that it is highly likely that *Lokaksema’s Dunzhentuoluo jing and the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing are one and the same text, as both Dao’an and Sengyou saw only one text, and both of the titles are recorded as in 2 juan. Yancong (仁壽録) discovered that there was only one Dunzhentuoluo jing/ Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, and listed the one ascribed to *Lokaksema only, excising the anonymous one. LDSBJ also excised the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, and the following catalogues did the same. Hayashiya claims that what those catalogues did is correct, and supports his view further by pointing out that the style and language of the Dunzhentuoluo suowen rulai sanmei jing T624 in the Taisho is undoubtedly that of *Lokaksema. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that, since there has only ever been one Dunzhentuoluo jing, only the text ascribed *Lokaksema should be kept, excising the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 | |
|
The Fa lü sanmei jing 法律三昧經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. It was extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu also lists this text. (Fajing also lists another Fa lü sanmei jing, which was written by King Wenxuan 文宣王, but in practical terms, there is no possibility of confusing these two texts of the same title, because the one written byKing Wenxuan under the Qi 齊 could not possibly have been the one in Dao’an’s list. Thus, King Wenxuan's Fa lü sanmei jing can be safely set aside.) Yancong followed Fajing in classifying the Fa lü sanmei jing in Dao'an's list as an extant anonymous scripture. Jingtai 靜泰錄 did not record this text. This was probably an error on Jingtai's part, since DTNDL 内典錄 again listed the text as an extant anonymous scripture. We can thus expect that Fa lü sanmei jing was continually extant, and all catalogues in the Zhongjing mulu line to DTNDL considered it as anonymous. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 classifies this Fa lü sanmei jing as a translation by Zhi Qian. Hayashiya points out that this classification is groundless and should be rejected. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 confused the issue still further by listing two separate Fa lü sanmei jing, attributing one to Zhi Qian and the other to An Shigao 安世高, classifying the former as lost, and the latter as extant. The attribution to An Shigao was taken from the so-called "Dharmottara catalogue" 達摩欝多羅錄. Despite the apparent similarity in name, this "Dharmottara catalogue" is a different catalogue from the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, and is not reliable (Hayashiya provides detailed explanations for this in Chapter 6 of Hayashiya 1941, the present source). Nonetheless, KYL 開元錄 includes entries for both supposed texts, translated by Zhi Qian and An Shigao, following LDSBJ. To make the matter even more confusing, KYL shows Zhi Qian's translation as extant, and An Shigao's as lost, in direct opposition to DZKZM. The Fa lü sanmei jing is extant in T631. Its vocabulary and tone are clearly of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Not only is its vocabulary radically different from that of An Shigao, but they are also different from the that usually found in Zhi Qian. In addition, the source of the attribution to Zhi Qian, i.e., LDSBJ, is unreliable. Thus, T631 should be regarded as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya also asserts that, since the Fa lü sanmei jing is an extant anonymous scripture and there only ever existed one version of the text, the issue of which version is Zhi Qian's or An Shigao's is meaningless. |
844-847 |
The Fa lu sanmei jing 法律三昧經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. It was extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu also lists this text. (Fajing also lists another Fa lu sanmei jing, which was written by King Wenxuan 文宣王, but in practical terms, there is no possibility of confusing these two texts of the same title, because the one written byKing Wenxuan under the Qi 齊 could not possibly have been the one in Dao’an’s list. Thus, King Wenxuan's Fa lu sanmei jing can be safely set aside.) Yancong followed Fajing in classifying the Fa lu sanmei jing in Dao'an's list as an extant anonymous scripture. Jingtai 靜泰錄 did not record this text. This was probably an error on Jingtai's part, since DTNDL 内典錄 again listed the text as an extant anonymous scripture. We can thus expect that Fa lu sanmei jing was continually extant, and all catalogues in the Zhongjing mulu line to DTNDL considered it as anonymous. However, LDSBJ 三寶記 classifies this Fa lu sanmei jing as a translation by Zhi Qian. Hayashiya points out that this classification is groundless and should be rejected. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 confused the issue still further by listing two separate Fa lu sanmei jing, attributing one to Zhi Qian and the other to An Shigao 安世高, classifying the former as lost, and the latter as extant. The attribution to An Shigao was taken from the so-called "Dharmottara catalogue" 達摩欝多羅錄. Despite the apparent similarity in name, this "Dharmottara catalogue" is a different catalogue from the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, and is not reliable (Hayashiya provides detailed explanations for this in Chapter 6 of Hayashiya 1941, the present source). Nonetheless, KYL 開元錄 includes entries for both supposed texts, translated by Zhi Qian and An Shigao, following LDSBJ. To make the matter even more confusing, KYL shows Zhi Qian's translation as extant, and An Shigao's as lost, in direct opposition to DZKZM. The Fa lu sanmei jing is extant in T631. Its vocabulary and tone are clearly of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Not only is its vocabulary radically different from that of An Shigao, but they are also different from the that usually found in Zhi Qian. In addition, the source of the attribution to Zhi Qian, i.e., LDSBJ, is unreliable. Thus, T631 should be regarded as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya also asserts that, since the Fa lu sanmei jing is an extant anonymous scripture and there only ever existed one version of the text, the issue of which version is Zhi Qian's or An Shigao's is meaningless. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0631; 佛說法律三昧經 |
|
A Wen cheng pi jing 聞城譬經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄 and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Since this text has exceptionally complicated relations with other texts related to the Shi'er yinyuan jing 十二因緣經 in catalogues after CSZJJ 出三藏記集, Hayashiya refers to his own Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 7 for detailed discussions on texts related to the Shi'er yinyuan jing, including the Wen cheng pi jing. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, LDSBJ 三寶記, and a number of other catalogues after them made a variety of mistakes because the editors of them did not notice that the Duobei shu xia siwei shi'er yinyuan jing was the same as the Wen cheng pi jing. For example, Fajing regarded the Shi'er yinyuan jing, whose alternate title was claimed to be the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing 聞城十二因縁經, as a translation by An Shigao. Moreover, LDSBJ listed the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing as translated in the Latter Han 後漢 period by Zhi Yao 支曜. However, the Shi'er yinyuan jing that An Shigao translated was not the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing, and the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing, which is an alternate title of the Wen cheng pi jing, is in fact the same text as the extant Duobei... T713, which cannot be Zhi Yao's translation. Hayashiya asserts that, despite different claims made by a number of catalogues, the Wen cheng pi jing must be recorded as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone, and from the fact that it was listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. |
1303-1304 |
A Wen cheng pi jing 聞城譬經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄 and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Since this text has exceptionally complicated relations with other texts related to the Shi'er yinyuan jing 十二因緣經 in catalogues after CSZJJ 出三藏記集, Hayashiya refers to his own Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 7 for detailed discussions on texts related to the Shi'er yinyuan jing, including the Wen cheng pi jing. As part of the conclusion of those discussion in the above work, Hayashiya states in the current work that the Wen cheng pi jing is none other than the Baiduo shu xian siwei shi'er yinyuan jing 貝多樹下思惟十二因縁經 T713, which is given in the modern cnaon as Lokaksema 支讖’s translation. Hayashiya claims that we are justified in identifying T713 with the Wen cheng pi jing, one reasons being that T713 contains an allegory that suits the title 聞城譬. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, LDSBJ 三寶記, and a number of other catalogues after them made a variety of mistakes because the editors of them did not notice that the Duobei shu xia siwei shi'er yinyuan jing was the same as the Wen cheng pi jing. For example, Fajing regarded the Shi'er yinyuan jing, whose alternate title was claimed to be the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing 聞城十二因縁經, as a translation by An Shigao. Moreover, LDSBJ listed the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing as translated in the Latter Han 後漢 period by Zhi Yao 支曜. However, the Shi'er yinyuan jing that An Shigao translated was not the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing, and the Wen cheng shi'er yinyuan jing, which is an alternate title of the Wen cheng pi jing, is in fact the same text as the extant Duobei... T713, which cannot be Zhi Yao's translation. Hayashiya asserts that, despite different claims made by a number of catalogues, the Wen cheng pi jing must be recorded as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone, and from the fact that it was listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0713; 聞城譬經; 貝多樹下思惟十二因緣經 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經, the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 is as follows: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Taishō: Hayashiya concludes that all attributions of translators to the different versions of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 should be omitted, because the source of those attributions, viz., LDSBJ, gives no ground the attributions it provides. Accordingly, probably the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 listed in CSZJJ was an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed on Dao’an’s list. The Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 is probably of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the W. Jin 西晋 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone. The title Yichu shi shan shi e jing may well just have been an alternate title of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, but since there is no decisive evidence either way, Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 should be retained as an independent title. (And if, as LDSBJ states, this title really was included in Zhu Daozu's Wu catalogue 竺道祖呉錄, it would be classified as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period or earlier.) |
930-938 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經, the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also lists an Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 in the category of unseen texts. Although he did not see it, it is titled yichu 異出 in the source catalogue he used, and therefore, the text is highly likely to be different from the Shi shan shi e jing. Also, there is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Thus, Sengyou lists three alternate translations of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經. There is a possibility that the unseen Yichu shi shan shi e jing was the same text as one of the others, but it is difficult to determine the relation between that unseen text and the other two. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as the same text, and did not list the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經. However, both the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing were extant at the time of Sengyou, and listed separately, so Sengyou and Fajing appear to disagree about the relation between the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. This issue is difficult to adjudicate, since both CSZJJ and Fajing contain mistakes. Hayashiya cannot find a reasonable explanation for the absence of the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in Fajing. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and made only a single entry for the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經. Yancong included the text in the group of Hinayana "offshoot texts" 別生抄, since the text available at the time of Yancong did not have the format usual for independent texts. Because of this, Jingtai did not show the length of the text. In any case, down to Jingtai, all the catalogues show the texts as anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ lists all of the three titles shown by Sengyou: a Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度, another Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 (referring to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 of CSZJJ) as translated by Tanwulan 曇無蘭, and a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects all of these attributions as groundless. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: DZKZM shows four entries for the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and related titles: adding to the titles in LDSBJ another Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度. DZKZM states that the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is shown in LDSBJ, but LDSBJ shows the Shi shan shi e jing as his, but not a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, so Hayashiya concludes that this new entry on a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is redundant with the Shi shan shi e jing by Zhi Fadu. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists the three titles shown in LDSBJ, while ignoring DZKZM’s redundant fourth entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. However, In the Korean edition of the Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄, Zhisheng 智昇 lists two Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, the one extant, and the other lost. Thus, there are four entries related to the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 in the Korean edition. Hayashiya explains this oddity as a simple mistake that Zhisheng 智昇 made when he found the text of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, which was once thought lost: Probably Zhisheng forgot to delete the entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing as a lost text when he made another entry showing it as extant. Taisho: There is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 extant in the Taisho. Its vocabulary and tone are clearly of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period. The number of good things and bad given in that text are eleven each, rather than ten as the term "shi shan shi e" 十善十悪 suggests. Further, the phrase "shi shan shi e" does not appear in the text even once. Thus, Hayashiya speculates that, if Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing is an alternate title of either the Shi shan shi e jing or the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in CSZJJ, it is more likely that it would apply to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing, sincethe term "shi shan shi e" does not straightforwardly match the content of T729. Hayashiya concludes that all attributions of translators to the different versions of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 should be omitted, because the source of those attributions, viz., LDSBJ, gives no ground the attributions it provides. Accordingly, probably the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 listed in CSZJJ was an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed on Dao’an’s list. The Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 is probably of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the W. Jin 西晋 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone. The title Yichu shi shan shi e jing may well just have been an alternate title of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, but since there is no decisive evidence either way, Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 should be retained as an independent title. (And if, as LDSBJ states, this title really was included in Zhu Daozu's Wu catalogue 竺道祖呉錄, it would be classified as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period or earlier.) T0729; Fenbie pinfu shan'e suoqi jing 分別貧富善惡所起經; Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經; 佛說分別善惡所起經 | |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jian xin jing 堅心經 and related titles is as follows: Catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Thus, this text was considered as a single anonymous text without any alternate version, down to the early Tang 唐 period. LDSBJ 三寶記: Taishō: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya concludes that the new attributions in and after LDSBJ must be rejected, and that the Jian yi jing 堅意經 should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or W. Jin 西晋 period, based on the fact that the text appeared first in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The Jian xin zheng yi jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures should be omitted, since it overlaps with the Jian yi jing. |
888-892 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jian xin jing 堅心經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Jian xin jing 堅心經is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue, but the text was lost at the time of Sengyou. Catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄: Sengyou also listed a Jian xin zheng yi jing 堅心政意經 in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures, but he did not specify the relation between the Jian xin jing and the Jian xin zheng yi jing, since he could not see the Jian xin jing. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed a Jian yi jing 堅意經 with Jian xin zheng yi jing 堅心正意經 as an alternate title, but omitted the Jian xin jing 堅心經. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu also lists a Jian yi jing 堅意經 with an alternate title Jian xin yi jing 堅心意經. Hayashiya maintains that this alternate title Jian xin yi jing supports his view that the Jian xin jing and the Jian xin zheng yi jing are regarded as the same text in those two catalogues. Jingtai 靜泰錄: Jingtai also lists the Jian yi jing 堅意經 only, with the length of the text as two sheets 紙. Thus, this text was considered as a single anonymous text without any alternate version, down to the early Tang 唐 period. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ listed the Jian yi jing 堅意經 and Jian xin zheng yi jing 堅心正意經 as different texts, the former as Zhi Qian’s translation and the latter as An Shigao's. No reasonable explanations are provided for the ascription. Taisho: The text of the Jian xin jing 堅心經 has survived as the Jian yi jing 堅意經 T733. The vocabulary and tone are not that of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and not at all characteristic of An Shigao. They may be of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, but not the standard style of Zhi Qian. Thus, LDSBJ’s ascription is highly dubious. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: DZKZM tried to follow LDSBJ, while taking into account the fact that other catalogues down to Jingtai accepted only one Jian xin jing 堅心經. DZKZM thus omits the entry on Zhi Qian’s translation and lists the Jian yi jing only, as by An Shigao. KYL 開元錄: KYL listed the two entries, following LDSBJ, but both with the title Jian yi jing, suggesting that Zhi Qian’s and An Shigao's texts were alternate translations of the same root text. KYL shows An Shigao's text as extant and Zhi Qian’s as lost. However, even the attribution of the extant text to An Shigao \was just copied from DZKZM, not based on the examination of the text of the Jian yi jing/Jian xin jing. Hayashiya concludes that the new attributions in and after LDSBJ must be rejected, and that the Jian yi jing 堅意經 should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or W. Jin 西晋 period, based on the fact that the text appeared first in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The Jian xin zheng yi jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures should be omitted, since it overlaps with the Jian yi jing. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0733; 佛說堅意經; 堅心正意經; 堅心經; Jian yi jing 堅意經 |
|
A Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Hayashiya points out that it is included in a number of other catalogues as well, also as an anonymous scripture, while LDSBJ 三寶記 omits it. The title Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經 is written as Eduoheduoqi jing 頞多和多耆經 in catalogues other than Dao'an's list. The length of this texts is recorded as 2 sheets 紙 in Jingtai 靜泰錄, DTNDL 内典錄 and KYL 開元錄. The length of the extant Poduoheduoqi jing 頞多和多耆經 T740 is indeed within the range of 2 sheets 紙 in length. In addition, the vocabulary and tone of the translation supports KYL’s assessment that it was produced in W. Jin 西晋 period. Thus, there is very little room for doubt that the Eduoheduoqi jing 頞多和多耆經 T740 is the same text as the Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經 in Dao'an's list. The po 頗 in Sengyou's 僧祐’s version of Dao'an’s list should be corrected to e 頞. LDSBJ’s omission of this text should be ignored as insignificant. |
539-540 |
A Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Hayashiya points out that it is included in a number of other catalogues as well, also as an anonymous scripture, while LDSBJ 三寶記 omits it. The title Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經 is written as Eduoheduoqi jing 頞多和多耆經 in catalogues other than Dao'an's list. The length of this texts is recorded as 2 sheets 紙 in Jingtai 靜泰錄, DTNDL 内典錄 and KYL 開元錄. The length of the extant Poduoheduoqi jing 頞多和多耆經 T740 is indeed within the range of 2 sheets 紙 in length. In addition, the vocabulary and tone of the translation supports KYL’s assessment that it was produced in W. Jin 西晋 period. Thus, there is very little room for doubt that the Eduoheduoqi jing 頞多和多耆經 T740 is the same text as the Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經 in Dao'an's list. The po 頗 in Sengyou's 僧祐’s version of Dao'an’s list should be corrected to e 頞. LDSBJ’s omission of this text should be ignored as insignificant. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0740; 佛說頞多和多耆經; Poduoheduoqi jing 頗多和多耆經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 listed a Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經, with the alternate titles Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經 and Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the “dubious” section 疑惑部 of its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) followed Fajing by in listing the text in the group of dubious and inauthentic scriptures 疑僞經. According to Hayashiya, the reason for such these classifications by these catalogues is that the text is difficult to categorize, since it was called a jing 經 while containing some clear evidence of editing, such as the incoherence of the beginning (it starts with 世尊曰, unlike normal sūtras 經) and the ending (which contains the phrase 莫不歡喜、作禮而去), and the inclusion of a verse that does not match the explanation given in the preceding part. Hayashiya conjectures that it must have been difficult to decide whether to include the text in the group of sūtras 經 or in the “catalogue of writings and compilations post-dating the Buddha’s nirvāṇa” 佛滅度後撰集錄. Still, both Fajing and Yancong did not regard the text as an apocryphon 僞經, since neither of them included it in the “apocryphal and spurious” section 僞妄部. Jingtai also included the Wu ku zhangju jing五苦章句經 in the group of “sūtras dubious or spurious” 衆經疑惑, and did not record its length. However, KYL lists two Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經: one is extant and ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 曇無蘭; while the other is lost and ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Accordingly, Hayashiya claims that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the section of catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄 in KYL should be the one ascribed to Tanwulan. It is listed with a length of thirteen sheets and the alternate titles Zhutian wu ku jing 諸天五苦經, Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經, and Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經. Following KYL, the Taishō ascribes 五苦章句經 T741 to Tanwulan. This being so, Hayahshiya claims, the grounds of the ascriptions to Tanwulan and Jingsheng need to be examined. These ascriptions are were first made in LDSBJ, which influenced KYL via DZKZM. LDSBJ lists a Wu ku jing 五苦經 ascribed to Tanwulan, with Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經, Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 as alternate titles; and also lists a Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng. Hayashiya points out that the Wu ku jing 五苦經 in LDSBJ is clearly the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 of Dao’an’s catalogue, judging from the alternate titles of the two, and that LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan is are generally quite unreliable in nature, because there are no texts that have been demonstrated to be as the work of Tanwulan. As for the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng, Hayashiya points out that the source that Fei Changfang 費長房 is supposed to have relied upon in making that ascription was the "separate catalogue" 別錄. However, as Hayashiya explained previously (660-668 of the same material), not only did the “separate catalogue” 別錄 often not include the ascription of a text, but also, since the “separate catalogue” 別錄 also influenced Fajing, Fajing would should have mentioned the ascription to Jingsheng before LDSBJ, if such ascription had been really given by the “separate catalouge”別錄. Moreover, it is chronologically impossible for any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue to be the work of Jingsheng, and the textual analysis of all the other extant texts ascribed to Jingsheng by LDSBJ have proven that those ascriptions are incorrect. There is no reason, Hayashiya claims, to suspect that Changfang might be right only in this time regarding the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經. Indeed, the style of language of T741 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and hence the text cannot possibly be Jingsheng’s work. In addition, all the major catalogues except for LDSBJ and those influenced by it record only one Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經, the one listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng is a “ghost scripture” that does not exist at all, being a fabrication by Changfang (who could not give a reliable ascription to the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in Dao’an’s catalogue, and instead made two groundless ascriptions instead, as he often does in similar cases). Subsequently, Hayashiya concludes that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Tanwulan by KYL and the Taishō is the text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, judging from its style of language and from the records of it in the catalogues prior to LDSBJ. The ascriptions to Tanwulan and to Jingsheng are both incorrect. Hence, the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the Taishō should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. |
696-700 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 listed a Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經, with the alternate titles Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經 and Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the “dubious” section 疑惑部 of its Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) followed Fajing by in listing the text in the group of dubious and inauthentic scriptures 疑僞經. According to Hayashiya, the reason for such these classifications by these catalogues is that the text is difficult to categorize, since it was called a jing 經 while containing some clear evidence of editing, such as the incoherence of the beginning (it starts with 世尊曰, unlike normal sutras 經) and the ending (which contains the phrase 莫不歡喜、作禮而去), and the inclusion of a verse that does not match the explanation given in the preceding part. Hayashiya conjectures that it must have been difficult to decide whether to include the text in the group of sutras 經 or in the “catalogue of writings and compilations post-dating the Buddha’s nirvana” 佛滅度後撰集錄. Still, both Fajing and Yancong did not regard the text as an apocryphon 僞經, since neither of them included it in the “apocryphal and spurious” section 僞妄部. Jingtai also included the Wu ku zhangju jing五苦章句經 in the group of “sutras dubious or spurious” 衆經疑惑, and did not record its length. However, KYL lists two Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經: one is extant and ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 曇無蘭; while the other is lost and ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Accordingly, Hayashiya claims that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the section of catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄 in KYL should be the one ascribed to Tanwulan. It is listed with a length of thirteen sheets and the alternate titles Zhutian wu ku jing 諸天五苦經, Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經, and Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經. Following KYL, the Taisho ascribes 五苦章句經 T741 to Tanwulan. This being so, Hayahshiya claims, the grounds of the ascriptions to Tanwulan and Jingsheng need to be examined. These ascriptions are were first made in LDSBJ, which influenced KYL via DZKZM. LDSBJ lists a Wu ku jing 五苦經 ascribed to Tanwulan, with Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經, Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 as alternate titles; and also lists a Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng. Hayashiya points out that the Wu ku jing 五苦經 in LDSBJ is clearly the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 of Dao’an’s catalogue, judging from the alternate titles of the two, and that LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan is are generally quite unreliable in nature, because there are no texts that have been demonstrated to be as the work of Tanwulan. As for the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng, Hayashiya points out that the source that Fei Changfang 費長房 is supposed to have relied upon in making that ascription was the "separate catalogue" 別錄. However, as Hayashiya explained previously (660-668 of the same material), not only did the “separate catalogue” 別錄 often not include the ascription of a text, but also, since the “separate catalogue” 別錄 also influenced Fajing, Fajing would should have mentioned the ascription to Jingsheng before LDSBJ, if such ascription had been really given by the “separate catalouge”別錄. Moreover, it is chronologically impossible for any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue to be the work of Jingsheng, and the textual analysis of all the other extant texts ascribed to Jingsheng by LDSBJ have proven that those ascriptions are incorrect. There is no reason, Hayashiya claims, to suspect that Changfang might be right only in this time regarding the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經. Indeed, the style of language of T741 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and hence the text cannot possibly be Jingsheng’s work. In addition, all the major catalogues except for LDSBJ and those influenced by it record only one Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經, the one listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng is a “ghost scripture” that does not exist at all, being a fabrication by Changfang (who could not give a reliable ascription to the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in Dao’an’s catalogue, and instead made two groundless ascriptions instead, as he often does in similar cases). Subsequently, Hayashiya concludes that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Tanwulan by KYL and the Taisho is the text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, judging from its style of language and from the records of it in the catalogues prior to LDSBJ. The ascriptions to Tanwulan and to Jingsheng are both incorrect. Hence, the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the Taisho should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0741; 五苦章句經; 諸天五苦經, 五道章句經, 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經, 五苦經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing 自愛不自愛經 is as follows: The Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 (stating that it is called Zi'ai jing 自愛經 in the "old catalogue" 舊錄). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Zi'ai jing, with Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing as an alternate title, in its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same text and titles in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the same scripture with a length of four sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively, the text must have been extant in those periods. The scripture is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ, followed by KYL 開元錄. KYL recorded its length as five sheets. Hayashiya explains that the difference of one sheet between the lengths shown in Jingtai and KYL is due to the fact that in transcribing scriptures, KYL uses the format of DZKZM, which would take about twenty percent more space than the format of Jingtai. Then he points out that the Zi'ai jing 自愛經 ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in the Taishō (T742) is slightly longer than four registers long, a length which corresponds to roughly four sheets or slightly less in Jingtai’s format, and five sheets or slightly less in KYL’s format. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taishō is the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing/Zi'ai jing that has been listed in the catalogues since the Sui period. Moreover, Hayashiya argues that the style of language in T742 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and therefore it is most reasonable to regard the text as the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing listed in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Thus, he concludes that the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing /Zi'ai jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Hayashiya rejects the Taishō’s ascription of T742 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, because this ascription only follows KYL, who in turn follows LDSBJ, whose ascription has been proven to be incorrect. |
683-685 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing 自愛不自愛經 is as follows: The Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 (stating that it is called Zi'ai jing 自愛經 in the "old catalogue" 舊錄). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Zi'ai jing, with Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing as an alternate title, in its Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same text and titles in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the same scripture with a length of four sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively, the text must have been extant in those periods. The scripture is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ, followed by KYL 開元錄. KYL recorded its length as five sheets. Hayashiya explains that the difference of one sheet between the lengths shown in Jingtai and KYL is due to the fact that in transcribing scriptures, KYL uses the format of DZKZM, which would take about twenty percent more space than the format of Jingtai. Then he points out that the Zi'ai jing 自愛經 ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in the Taisho (T742) is slightly longer than four registers long, a length which corresponds to roughly four sheets or slightly less in Jingtai’s format, and five sheets or slightly less in KYL’s format. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taisho is the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing/Zi'ai jing that has been listed in the catalogues since the Sui period. Moreover, Hayashiya argues that the style of language in T742 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and therefore it is most reasonable to regard the text as the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing listed in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Thus, he concludes that the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing /Zi'ai jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Hayashiya rejects the Taisho’s ascription of T742 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, because this ascription only follows KYL, who in turn follows LDSBJ, whose ascription has been proven to be incorrect. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0742; 佛說自愛經; 自愛不自愛經 |
|
Under the heading of Landa wang jing 藍達王經, Hayashiya deals with three titles in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. They are: the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄; the Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心政行經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄; and the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, classified as an unseen text. The first were extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya claims that the Mulian yinyuan jing is highly likely to be the same text as the Landa wang jing, because Sengyou did not see the text of the Mulian yinyuan jing, and the title is very similar to one of the alternate titles of the Landa wang jing, namely, the Mulian yinyuan gongde jing 目連因緣功徳經. Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues after CSZJJ on those and related titles, and his conclusions about questions of ascription regarding each, are as follows: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: The Landa wang jing 藍達王經 has not survived to the present, but it is quoted in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 [JLYX]. Hayashiya points out that there is no part in the extant T152 corresponding to the Landa wang jing as cited in JLYX. Even the name Landa wang 藍達王 appears nowhere in T152. Furthermore, the Landa wang section part in JLYX does not contain any part related to the title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Thus, Hayashiya judges that Fajing’s is mistaken to hold that the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing are the same text, and an excerpt 抄 from T152. Hayashiya conjectures that probably some person in the editorial team of Fajing had seen the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and thought it could also be called the Landa wang jing because the protagonist of the former is Mulian, and the latter has the alternate title Mulian yinyuan gongde jing. Fajing did not list the Mulian yinyuan jing. This omission is reasonable, since it is probably the same text as the Landa wang jing, but that raises a different problem: it then appears as if Fajing has only one text in this group, viz. a single Landa wang jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing, whereas CSZJJ has two separate texts, viz. the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Hayashiya claims that the title in Fajing that corresponds to the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the CSZJJ is the Zhong xin jing 中心經, which Fajing lists as an anonymous scripture, because the title Zhong xin jing is not found in CSZJJ. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: Hayashiya examines the surviving text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, viz., the Zhong xin jing 忠心經 T743, which is given as Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, and the the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 portion of the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 [as transmitted in JLYX? -- MR]. The vocabulary of T743 is quite archaic, probably of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and cannot be newer than the beginning of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. For example, "five skandahs" is translated 五賊, and the five individual skandhas are translated 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死 and 識. Also, the twelve nidānas are translated 癡, 行, 識, 名色, 六入, 栽, 痛, 愛, 受, 有, 生 and 死. Hence, the Zhong xin zheng xing jing cannot be Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, since he was active around the E. Jin 東晋 period. On the other hand, it is more difficult to determine the attribution of the Landa wang jing 藍達王經, since the text in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 might be just an excerpt from the real Landa wang jing 藍達王經. Nonetheless, judging from the text shown in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經, the vocabulary and tone are clearly different from Zhi Qian’s, and hence the text is not his composition. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: KYL records the length of the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing as five sheets, the same length as the Zhong xin jing shown in Jingtai. This length is slightly more than four registers in the Taishō. T743 is about four and a half registers long. However, Hayashiya maintains that T743 has more spaces than usual between some lines and characters, so the text could be written in roughly four registers. Thus, it is certain that T743 is the Zhong xin jing in Jingtai, and the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the KYL. This means also that the text is the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of CSZJJ. Hayashiya concludes that the Landa wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. As stated above, we can see part of this text today as quoted in JLYX. The Zhong xing jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心經/忠心正行經/忠心政行經 T743 must be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. All the other mistaken entries related to these two texts, which are shown above, need be excised. |
1124-1133 |
Under the heading of Landa wang jing 藍達王經, Hayashiya deals with three titles in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. They are: the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄; the Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心政行經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄; and the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, classified as an unseen text. The first were extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya claims that the Mulian yinyuan jing is highly likely to be the same text as the Landa wang jing, because Sengyou did not see the text of the Mulian yinyuan jing, and the title is very similar to one of the alternate titles of the Landa wang jing, namely, the Mulian yinyuan gongde jing 目連因緣功徳經. Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues after CSZJJ on those and related titles, and his conclusions about questions of ascription regarding each, are as follows: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Zhong xing zheng xing jing 忠心正行經, with the alternate title Landa wang jing, as an excerpt 抄 from the Liu du ji jing 六度集 (T152), so that Landa wang jing 藍達王經 appears to be a text also called Zhong xing zheng xing jing, and an offshoot text from T152. The Landa wang jing 藍達王經 has not survived to the present, but it is quoted in the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 [JLYX]. Hayashiya points out that there is no part in the extant T152 corresponding to the Landa wang jing as cited in JLYX. Even the name Landa wang 藍達王 appears nowhere in T152. Furthermore, the Landa wang section part in JLYX does not contain any part related to the title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Thus, Hayashiya judges that Fajing’s is mistaken to hold that the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing are the same text, and an excerpt 抄 from T152. Hayashiya conjectures that probably some person in the editorial team of Fajing had seen the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and thought it could also be called the Landa wang jing because the protagonist of the former is Mulian, and the latter has the alternate title Mulian yinyuan gongde jing. Fajing did not list the Mulian yinyuan jing. This omission is reasonable, since it is probably the same text as the Landa wang jing, but that raises a different problem: it then appears as if Fajing has only one text in this group, viz. a single Landa wang jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing, whereas CSZJJ has two separate texts, viz. the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Hayashiya claims that the title in Fajing that corresponds to the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the CSZJJ is the Zhong xin jing 中心經, which Fajing lists as an anonymous scripture, because the title Zhong xin jing is not found in CSZJJ. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and listed the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as a Hinayana offshoot text, giving Landa wang jing as an alternate title, and listed the Zhong xin jing 中心經 as a sole-witness Hinayana text. Jingtai notes that the length of the Zhong xin jing is five sheets 紙. Down to the time of Jingtai, the Zhong xin jing was extant, while it is not clear whether the Zhong xin zheng xing jing was extant or lost, since it was mistakenly regarded as an offshoot text. Both were considered anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ lists the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as different texts, and did not list the Zhong xin jing. Hayashiya claims that LDSBJ is right in separating the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, apparently in reliance upon Dao’an, although LDSBJ still considers the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from T152. LDSBJ classifies the Landa wang jing as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya rejects those attributions as groundless. He also shows textual evidence for his rejection as follows: Hayashiya examines the surviving text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, viz., the Zhong xin jing 忠心經 T743, which is given as Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, and the the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 portion of the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 [as transmitted in JLYX? -- MR]. The vocabulary of T743 is quite archaic, probably of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and cannot be newer than the beginning of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. For example, "five skandahs" is translated 五賊, and the five individual skandhas are translated 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死 and 識. Also, the twelve nidanas are translated 癡, 行, 識, 名色, 六入, 栽, 痛, 愛, 受, 有, 生 and 死. Hence, the Zhong xin zheng xing jing cannot be Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, since he was active around the E. Jin 東晋 period. On the other hand, it is more difficult to determine the attribution of the Landa wang jing 藍達王經, since the text in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 might be just an excerpt from the real Landa wang jing 藍達王經. Nonetheless, judging from the text shown in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經, the vocabulary and tone are clearly different from Zhi Qian’s, and hence the text is not his composition. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: Following LDSBJ, DZKZM listed the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 as translated by Zhi Qian, and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from the Liu du ji jing, translated by Zhu Tanwulan. Hayashiya points out that to regard the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from T152 in this case is doubly mistaken, because the text that Fajing wrongly considered to be an offshoot text of T152/the Liu du ji jing was the Landa wang jing, which in turn was erroneously considered to have an alternate title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. By contrast, what LDSBJ and DZKZM show as an offshoot text from T152/the Liu du ji jing is supposed to be the Zhong xin zheng xing jing originally listed as an independent text by Dao’an. In any case, neither of the two texts is an offshoot text of T152/the Liu du ji jing. KYL 開元錄: KYL also listed the Landa wang jing as translated by Zhi Qian, and the Zhong xin jing, with the alternate title Zhong xin zheng xing jing, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan. Zhisheng then made another mistake, which was to list the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, a title which actually refers to the Landa wang jing, as an anonymous scripture of the [Liu] Song 宋 period. Nonetheless, Zhisheng gets one thing right: he directly examined the text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, and stated that there is no correspondence between the content of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and that of T152/the Liu du ji jing. KYL records the length of the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing as five sheets, the same length as the Zhong xin jing shown in Jingtai. This length is slightly more than four registers in the Taisho. T743 is about four and a half registers long. However, Hayashiya maintains that T743 has more spaces than usual between some lines and characters, so the text could be written in roughly four registers. Thus, it is certain that T743 is the Zhong xin jing in Jingtai, and the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the KYL. This means also that the text is the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of CSZJJ. Hayashiya concludes that the Landa wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. As stated above, we can see part of this text today as quoted in JLYX. The Zhong xing jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心經/忠心正行經/忠心政行經 T743 must be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. All the other mistaken entries related to these two texts, which are shown above, need be excised. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0743; 忠心正行經; 忠心政行經 ; Zhongxin jing 忠心經; 佛說忠心經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Wu wufanfu jing 五無反復經 and related titles is as follows: A Wu wufanfu jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as Wu wufanfu jing in 1 juan 五無反復經一巻. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Wu wufanfu jing , with the alternate title Wuyou fanfu jing 五有返復經, as an anonymous scripture in its catalogue of the Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) records the same information as Fajing. Jingtai 靜泰錄 also records the same, stating that the text is four sheets in length. Thus, all catalogues of scriptures admitted to the canon 入藏錄 and those of the extant canon 現藏錄 down to Jingtai classified the text as a single anonymous text. (Hayashiya explains that small differences in the tiles in the catalogues do not matter in this case, because 反復 and 返復 means roughly the same thing (viz., “to repeat”). Further, both 五無反復 and 五有反復 match the content of the text. In the story, a monk accuses a family and their servant (five people in total) of apparently not lamenting the death of their family member more than once (無返復), and the Buddha admonished this monk by saying, 最有反復. This text is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, with the title Wu wufanfu dayi jing 五無反覆大義經. Following that, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 lists a Wu wufanfu jing in the group of single Hīnayāna texts, with the alternate title Wu you fanfu dayi jing 五有返覆大義經. Accordingly, KYL 開元錄 also lists the title as an extant single Hīnayāna text ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng. It also included the title in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄, with a length of two sheets. Hayashiya then clarifies two issues. One is the relation between different versions of the text in the Taishō. There are three versions: (a) Wu wufanfu jing (Song 宋 version); (b) Wu wufanfu jing (Ming 明 version) (both T751), and (c) Wu wufanfu jing (Korean 麗 version, T752). All of these texts are ascribed to Jingsheng. The other is the issue of discrepancies regarding the length of the text: Jingtai records it as four sheets, DZKZM as three sheets, and KYL as two sheets. This is odd, Hayashiya points out, because in principle the length of a text measured in the format of DZKZM or KYL should be 20% or so longer than that measured with the format of Jingtai. As for the first issue, the existence of different versions, Hayshiya maintains that they should be counted as one and the same text, because: 1. Differences between versions (a) and (b) are so small that there is no problem in regarding the two as the same scripture; 2. Although version (c) is in a number of places evidently different from the other two, the differences are not significant enough to judge that (c) is a different translation work, and therefore they are a result of natural transmission errors and additions; 3. There are many other cases of discrepancies of this kind among versions of the same text with non-essential differences. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there was only ever one Wu wufanfu jing, with no alternate translations. Based on the finding that there is only one Wu wufanfu jing, Hayashiya gives an answer to the second issue, viz., discrepancies among the catalogues regarding the length of the text. He claims that, since the length of the original version of the text must have been between two registers and two registers and a few lines, Jingtai should have recorded it as two or three sheets, while DZKZM and KYL should have recorded it as three sheets (which means that only DZKZM got it right). Hayashiya states that it is quite odd that both Jingtai and KYL stated an incorrect length (four sheets and two sheets respectively), but maintains that we have to conclude that those lengths are scribal errors. Hayashiya points out that the three versions of the Wu wufanfu jing in the Taishō share the same style, which is clearly that of the Western Jin 西晋 period, and hence asserts that the ascription of the text to Jingsheng given by LDSBJ is incorrect. Thus, he concludes that the ascription to Jingsheng in LDSBJ, DZKZM and KYL must be rejected, and that the Wu wufanfu jing must be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, because of its the style and the fact that it is included in Dao’an’s catalogue . |
756-759 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Wu wufanfu jing 五無反復經 and related titles is as follows: A Wu wufanfu jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as Wu wufanfu jing in 1 juan 五無反復經一巻. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Wu wufanfu jing , with the alternate title Wuyou fanfu jing 五有返復經, as an anonymous scripture in its catalogue of the Hinayana sutrapitaka 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) records the same information as Fajing. Jingtai 靜泰錄 also records the same, stating that the text is four sheets in length. Thus, all catalogues of scriptures admitted to the canon 入藏錄 and those of the extant canon 現藏錄 down to Jingtai classified the text as a single anonymous text. (Hayashiya explains that small differences in the tiles in the catalogues do not matter in this case, because 反復 and 返復 means roughly the same thing (viz., “to repeat”). Further, both 五無反復 and 五有反復 match the content of the text. In the story, a monk accuses a family and their servant (five people in total) of apparently not lamenting the death of their family member more than once (無返復), and the Buddha admonished this monk by saying, 最有反復. This text is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, with the title Wu wufanfu dayi jing 五無反覆大義經. Following that, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 lists a Wu wufanfu jing in the group of single Hinayana texts, with the alternate title Wu you fanfu dayi jing 五有返覆大義經. Accordingly, KYL 開元錄 also lists the title as an extant single Hinayana text ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng. It also included the title in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄, with a length of two sheets. Hayashiya then clarifies two issues. One is the relation between different versions of the text in the Taisho. There are three versions: (a) Wu wufanfu jing (Song 宋 version); (b) Wu wufanfu jing (Ming 明 version) (both T751), and (c) Wu wufanfu jing (Korean 麗 version, T752). All of these texts are ascribed to Jingsheng. The other is the issue of discrepancies regarding the length of the text: Jingtai records it as four sheets, DZKZM as three sheets, and KYL as two sheets. This is odd, Hayashiya points out, because in principle the length of a text measured in the format of DZKZM or KYL should be 20% or so longer than that measured with the format of Jingtai. As for the first issue, the existence of different versions, Hayshiya maintains that they should be counted as one and the same text, because: 1. Differences between versions (a) and (b) are so small that there is no problem in regarding the two as the same scripture; 2. Although version (c) is in a number of places evidently different from the other two, the differences are not significant enough to judge that (c) is a different translation work, and therefore they are a result of natural transmission errors and additions; 3. There are many other cases of discrepancies of this kind among versions of the same text with non-essential differences. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there was only ever one Wu wufanfu jing, with no alternate translations. Based on the finding that there is only one Wu wufanfu jing, Hayashiya gives an answer to the second issue, viz., discrepancies among the catalogues regarding the length of the text. He claims that, since the length of the original version of the text must have been between two registers and two registers and a few lines, Jingtai should have recorded it as two or three sheets, while DZKZM and KYL should have recorded it as three sheets (which means that only DZKZM got it right). Hayashiya states that it is quite odd that both Jingtai and KYL stated an incorrect length (four sheets and two sheets respectively), but maintains that we have to conclude that those lengths are scribal errors. Hayashiya points out that the three versions of the Wu wufanfu jing in the Taisho share the same style, which is clearly that of the Western Jin 西晋 period, and hence asserts that the ascription of the text to Jingsheng given by LDSBJ is incorrect. Thus, he concludes that the ascription to Jingsheng in LDSBJ, DZKZM and KYL must be rejected, and that the Wu wufanfu jing must be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, because of its the style and the fact that it is included in Dao’an’s catalogue . Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0751; 佛說五無反復經; Wu wufanfu jing 五無返復經, Wuyou fanfu jing 五有返復經 |
|
Hayashiya notes that this text was first ascribed to Guṇabhadra in LDSBJ, and thinks that this ascription is baseless. He regards the text rather as probably an anonymous scripture 失譯經 of the W. Jin 西晋 era (he cites as an example of typical W. Jin phraseology 佛說如是,比丘歡喜稽首而退). Hayashiya also suggests, following Fajing, that this is probably identical with the Shi'er si jing 十二死經 mentioned in various catalogues. Indeed, he argues that this title is probably the more authentic title, because it fits the content of the text. One possible sticking point for the identification of the two titles as belonging to the same text is that Sengyou's CSZJJ section on anonymous assorted scriptures 失譯雑經録 lists them separately, and also notes that in his time, both texts were still extant. This suggests that he may have seen two different texts, but his record is not entirely reliable, because, Hayashiya claims, Sengyou sometimes classified different titles as different texts without comparing the contents. Zhisheng's KYL partially corrected the prior record by listing the text as an anonymous text of the W. Jin on the basis of stylistic considerations but also kept a separate record of a text ascribed to Guṇabhadra, which Hayashiya regards as erroneous. |
484-485 |
Hayashiya notes that this text was first ascribed to Gunabhadra in LDSBJ, and thinks that this ascription is baseless. He regards the text rather as probably an anonymous scripture 失譯經 of the W. Jin 西晋 era (he cites as an example of typical W. Jin phraseology 佛說如是,比丘歡喜稽首而退). Hayashiya also suggests, following Fajing, that this is probably identical with the Shi'er si jing 十二死經 mentioned in various catalogues. Indeed, he argues that this title is probably the more authentic title, because it fits the content of the text. One possible sticking point for the identification of the two titles as belonging to the same text is that Sengyou's CSZJJ section on anonymous assorted scriptures 失譯雑經録 lists them separately, and also notes that in his time, both texts were still extant. This suggests that he may have seen two different texts, but his record is not entirely reliable, because, Hayashiya claims, Sengyou sometimes classified different titles as different texts without comparing the contents. Zhisheng's KYL partially corrected the prior record by listing the text as an anonymous text of the W. Jin on the basis of stylistic considerations but also kept a separate record of a text ascribed to Gunabhadra, which Hayashiya regards as erroneous. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0753; 十二品生死經; Shi'er si jing, 十二死經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Taishō: Hayashiya states that Fajing and Yancong are not incorrect, in the sense that they did not specify which version of the San hui jing they meant. KYL 開元錄 ascribes the text as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period 涼世失譯, which should be corrected to an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. LDSBJ 三寶記 did not list the title at all, which Hayashiya considers a mistake. |
992-994 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A San hui jing 三慧經 is listed in this catalogue, and was already lost at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: However, Sengyou also listed the same title, San hui jing, as an extract 抄, in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Hayashiya suggests that the two San hui jing are likely to be the same text, but Sengyou listed them separately just in case the lost version in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 is the complete version, while the one in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures is recorded as an extract. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed only one San hui jing. Yancong did the same, listing the extract version only. Taisho: The Taisho features the San hui jing 三慧經 T768. This text does not contain some phrases unique to sutras, e.g., 如是我聞 and so on. Hayashiya maintains that this T768 is highly likely to be the extract version of the San hui jing listed in catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. Its vocabulary and tone are clearly that of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Then, it is also possible that T768 was included in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. Thus, Hayashiya infers that probably the two San hui jing in CSZJJ are indeed the same text. In which case, he argues, the one in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures should be excised, since it is the same item as the San hui jing in tyhe recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. Hayashiya states that Fajing and Yancong are not incorrect, in the sense that they did not specify which version of the San hui jing they meant. KYL 開元錄 ascribes the text as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period 涼世失譯, which should be corrected to an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. LDSBJ 三寶記 did not list the title at all, which Hayashiya considers a mistake. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0768; 三慧經 |
|
According to Hayashiya, the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was also extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes this text in a group of unseen texts, so it was lost by the time of Fajing. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄 also listed this text with the title only, as a 別生經. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記 classifies the Nei li boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, a title which clearly refers to the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經, as a translation by Yan Fotiao 巖佛調, without giving any reasons. No previous catalogues had made such a claim. Further, Hayashiya points out that all texts that Fei Changfang 費長房 attributed to Yan Fotiao were in fact not by Yan Fotiao, with the sole exception of the Shi hui jing 十慧經 (Hayashiya refers to his own work, 巖佛調譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明], for further explanations). Thus, Fei Changfang's claim that the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 was translated by Yan Fotiao is baseless. By the time of KYL 開元錄, a text entitled Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 is noted, and was listed as Yan Fotiao's translation in the KYL. This text is extant today, as the Pusa nei xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 T778. Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary and tone of this text shows clearly that it was composed in or around the W. Jin 西晋 period, and cannot have been a translation by Yan Fotiao, who was active in the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that KYL classified this Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing as translated by Yan Fotiao on the simple assumption that it was the same text referred to with by the title Nei liu boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, and then following LDSBJ’s ascription. It remains undetermined whether T778, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period, is the same text as the Nei liu boluomi jing. |
813-815 |
According to Hayashiya, the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was also extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes this text in a group of unseen texts, so it was lost by the time of Fajing. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄 also listed this text with the title only, as a 別生經. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記 classifies the Nei li boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, a title which clearly refers to the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經, as a translation by Yan Fotiao 巖佛調, without giving any reasons. No previous catalogues had made such a claim. Further, Hayashiya points out that all texts that Fei Changfang 費長房 attributed to Yan Fotiao were in fact not by Yan Fotiao, with the sole exception of the Shi hui jing 十慧經 (Hayashiya refers to his own work, 巖佛調譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明], for further explanations). Thus, Fei Changfang's claim that the Neiwai liu boluomi jing 内外六波羅蜜經 was translated by Yan Fotiao is baseless. By the time of KYL 開元錄, a text entitled Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 is noted, and was listed as Yan Fotiao's translation in the KYL. This text is extant today, as the Pusa nei xi liu boluomi jing 菩薩内習六波羅蜜經 T778. Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary and tone of this text shows clearly that it was composed in or around the W. Jin 西晋 period, and cannot have been a translation by Yan Fotiao, who was active in the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that KYL classified this Pusa nie xi liu boluomi jing as translated by Yan Fotiao on the simple assumption that it was the same text referred to with by the title Nei liu boluomi jing 内六波羅蜜經, and then following LDSBJ’s ascription. It remains undetermined whether T778, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period, is the same text as the Nei liu boluomi jing. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0778; 佛說菩薩內習六波羅蜜經 |
|
A Zhi shen jing 治身經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya points out that it is in the Taishō, 治身經 T795. Since this text exists, and Dao'an included it in his list, KYL was right to include it again. Hayashiya maintains that this text is likely to have been produced in or around the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, because its style appears noticeably archaic. Still, he admits that it is difficult to determine the date, because the text is short. The KYL 開元錄 includes this Zhi shen jing 治身經 in its Sheng xian ji zhuan 聖賢集傳, despite the fact that jing 經 appears in the title. According to Hayashiya, this classification is due to its style, which does not use phrases common in sūtras such as 聞如是 and so on. Hayashiya also claims that the Zhi yi jing 治意經 T96 is likely to have been written by the same author. |
542-543 |
A Zhi shen jing 治身經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya points out that it is in the Taisho, 治身經 T795. Since this text exists, and Dao'an included it in his list, KYL was right to include it again. Hayashiya maintains that this text is likely to have been produced in or around the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, because its style appears noticeably archaic. Still, he admits that it is difficult to determine the date, because the text is short. The KYL 開元錄 includes this Zhi shen jing 治身經 in its Sheng xian ji zhuan 聖賢集傳, despite the fact that jing 經 appears in the title. According to Hayashiya, this classification is due to its style, which does not use phrases common in sutras such as 聞如是 and so on. Hayashiya also claims that the Zhi yi jing 治意經 T96 is likely to have been written by the same author. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0795; 佛治身經; Zhi shen jing 治身經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 lists a Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經, with the alternate titles Shengsi bainshi jing 生死變識經, Jianzheng biqiu jing 見正比丘經, and Jianzheng jing 見正經. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Jianzheng jing with the alternate title Shengsi bianshi jing in its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) records the same title in its category of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the text must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong’s work is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the same Jianzheng jing 見正經 with a length of seven sheets 紙. Unlike those catalogues, LDSBJ ascribes the Jianzheng jing 見正經 to Zhu Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋, while listing a Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 separately. Influenced by LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists a Jianzheng jing, ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan, with the alternate title Shengsi bianshi jing, in the category of extant single Hīnayāna texts 有譯有本小乗經單譯, and also includes a Shengsi bianshi jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in the category of lost single Hīnayāna texts 有譯無本小乗經單譯. Hayashiya points out that, since Shengsi bianshi jing is, together with Jianzheng jing, an alternate title of the Shengsi bianhua jing, if it is to be listed separately from the Jianzheng jing, the titles Shengsi bianshi jing and Jianzheng jing should be shown as alternate translations for the same base text. Hayashiya infers that the reason that Zhisheng 智昇 presents the two titles as different single texts is that Zhisheng is worried about the possibility that the Shengsi bianhua jing ascribed to Jingsheng is a repeat listing 重複記載 of the Jianzheng jing, and to be excised accordingly. In the note on the Shengsi bianshi jing ascribed to Jingsheng, Zhisheng explicitly states his suspicion that the title may be just an alternate title of the Jianzheng jing 見正經 (今疑是藏中見正經異名). Hayashiya argues that there only ever was one Shengsi bianhua jing, because Sengyou gives Jianzheng jing and Shengsi bianshi jing only as alternate titles of that text, and there are no other alternate translations of the text listed in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 of CSZJJ. Moreover, LDSBJ, the source of KYL’s entries on the Jianzheng jing and Shengsi bianshi jing, does not show any reliable grounds for the ascriptions it gives to either. Hayashiya maintains that, although LDSBJ claims that the two ascriptions are based on the “separate catalogue” 別錄, that catalogue could not have given such ascriptions (he discusses the unreliability of LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan at 660-668, those to Jingsheng at 707-714). He also points out the fact that LDSBJ sometimes make up new entries just to offer different groundless ascriptions when it fails to give a reliable ascription to a certain text, which typically is the case when it gives an ascription to Tanwulan and to Jingsheng for related titles. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that ascriptions given to Jianzheng jing and Shengsi bianshi jing in LDSBJ and KYL are unreliable. A Jianzheng jing, ascribed wrongly to Tanwulan, was extant at the time of KYL. The catalogue records its length as eight sheets, one sheet longer than the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya explains that this difference in length is due to the difference in the format: lengths in KYL are based on the format specified at the time of DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, which was approximately 20% smaller than the format used by Jingtai. Hayashiya infers that the length of the text is hence slightly shorter than seven sheets in Jingtai’s format. Therefore, since the Jianzheng jing T796 has just about that length, he asserts that that text in the Taishō is the Jianzheng jing that has been listed in the catalogues since the Sui period. As for the style of language of T796, Hayashiya holds that it is clearly the style of the W. Jin 西晋 or some time close to that. Nonetheless, the ascription to Tanwulan should be rejected, because it is based on the groundless ascription in LDSBJ. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that T796 should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. |
669-672 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 lists a Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經, with the alternate titles Shengsi bainshi jing 生死變識經, Jianzheng biqiu jing 見正比丘經, and Jianzheng jing 見正經. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Jianzheng jing with the alternate title Shengsi bianshi jing in its Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) records the same title in its category of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Hayashiya points out that the text must have been extant at least until the time of Yancong, viz., the Sui, as Yancong’s work is a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded the same Jianzheng jing 見正經 with a length of seven sheets 紙. Unlike those catalogues, LDSBJ ascribes the Jianzheng jing 見正經 to Zhu Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋, while listing a Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 separately. Influenced by LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists a Jianzheng jing, ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan, with the alternate title Shengsi bianshi jing, in the category of extant single Hinayana texts 有譯有本小乗經單譯, and also includes a Shengsi bianshi jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in the category of lost single Hinayana texts 有譯無本小乗經單譯. Hayashiya points out that, since Shengsi bianshi jing is, together with Jianzheng jing, an alternate title of the Shengsi bianhua jing, if it is to be listed separately from the Jianzheng jing, the titles Shengsi bianshi jing and Jianzheng jing should be shown as alternate translations for the same base text. Hayashiya infers that the reason that Zhisheng 智昇 presents the two titles as different single texts is that Zhisheng is worried about the possibility that the Shengsi bianhua jing ascribed to Jingsheng is a repeat listing 重複記載 of the Jianzheng jing, and to be excised accordingly. In the note on the Shengsi bianshi jing ascribed to Jingsheng, Zhisheng explicitly states his suspicion that the title may be just an alternate title of the Jianzheng jing 見正經 (今疑是藏中見正經異名). Hayashiya argues that there only ever was one Shengsi bianhua jing, because Sengyou gives Jianzheng jing and Shengsi bianshi jing only as alternate titles of that text, and there are no other alternate translations of the text listed in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 of CSZJJ. Moreover, LDSBJ, the source of KYL’s entries on the Jianzheng jing and Shengsi bianshi jing, does not show any reliable grounds for the ascriptions it gives to either. Hayashiya maintains that, although LDSBJ claims that the two ascriptions are based on the “separate catalogue” 別錄, that catalogue could not have given such ascriptions (he discusses the unreliability of LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan at 660-668, those to Jingsheng at 707-714). He also points out the fact that LDSBJ sometimes make up new entries just to offer different groundless ascriptions when it fails to give a reliable ascription to a certain text, which typically is the case when it gives an ascription to Tanwulan and to Jingsheng for related titles. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that ascriptions given to Jianzheng jing and Shengsi bianshi jing in LDSBJ and KYL are unreliable. A Jianzheng jing, ascribed wrongly to Tanwulan, was extant at the time of KYL. The catalogue records its length as eight sheets, one sheet longer than the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya explains that this difference in length is due to the difference in the format: lengths in KYL are based on the format specified at the time of DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, which was approximately 20% smaller than the format used by Jingtai. Hayashiya infers that the length of the text is hence slightly shorter than seven sheets in Jingtai’s format. Therefore, since the Jianzheng jing T796 has just about that length, he asserts that that text in the Taisho is the Jianzheng jing that has been listed in the catalogues since the Sui period. As for the style of language of T796, Hayashiya holds that it is clearly the style of the W. Jin 西晋 or some time close to that. Nonetheless, the ascription to Tanwulan should be rejected, because it is based on the groundless ascription in LDSBJ. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that T796 should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0796; 佛說見正經; Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經, Shengsi bainshi jing 生死變識經, Jianzheng biqiu jing 見正比丘經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jinxue jing 進學經 and related titles is as follows: A Jinxue jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Quan jin xue dao jing 勸進學道經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Jinxue jing in its “Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) regards this text as an offshoot scripture 別生抄經, and lists it among the Hīnayāna offshoot texts 小乗別生抄. Accordingly, Jingtai 靜泰錄 also includes the title, but without giving the length. All of Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai recorded only one Jinxue jing , with no alternate translations. However, LDSBJ lists three Jinxue jing : a Quan jin xue dao jing /Jin xue dao jing 進學道經 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙 of the Wu 呉period; a Jinxue jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 of the Song 宋 period; and a Quan jin jing 勸進經/Quan jin xue dao jing 勸進學道經 ascribed to Yong gong 勇公 of the Song 宋 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of the above three ascriptions are groundless, for the following reasons: The ascription to Juqu Jingsheng is incorrect, referring to his own elucidation at 707-714, where he argues in detail that all of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of the titles included in Dao’an’s catalogue to Jingsheng are incorrect. His reasons include: 1) any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been produced in the Song period; 2) the source of those ascriptions suggested by Fei Changfang 費長房, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, could not have given such ascriptions, since if it had, Fajing should have mentioned them. Regarding the ascription to Zhi Qian, Hayashiya asserts again that all of LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Zhi Qian are incorrect, referring to his own “Shi ken yakkyō no kenkyū 支謙譯經の研究” [I was unable to indentify this item—AI]. About the ascription to Yong gong, Fei cites as his sources the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, the Zhao catalogue 趙錄, and the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, but Hayashiya argues that all of these could not have given such an ascription. This is because if Changfang really saw the Shixing catalogue and the Zhao catalogue, he must have seen them in the form of quotations in the Fashang catalogue (so only the Fashang catalogue matters in this case); and if there had been an ascription of the Quan jin jing/Quan jin xue dao jing to Yong gong in the Fashang catalogue, Fajing should have mentioned it. In addition, similar to the case of Jingsheng, the claim that an ascription to a person in the Song period was in the Zhao catalogue does not make chronological sense. Thus, Hayashiya claims that all of the three ascriptions given by LDSBJ are groundless. Moreover, he points out that LDSBJ’s addition of two versions itself is doubtful, suggesting that two of the three versions are “ghost scriptures” that do not exist. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ in listing three Jinxue jing , stating that its source is LDSBJ. However, it does not include any of those texts in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Hayashiya thinks that it is because the text was lost at the time of DZKZM due to the categorization of the text as an offshoot scripture 別生抄經 from the time of Yancong. KYL listed the same three titles as LDSBJ and DZKZM. Hayashiya infers that the text was found again at the time of KYL, since the one ascribed to Jingsheng is included in the group of extant repeat Hīnayāna translations 小乗經重譯 in the Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 of KYL. The other two titles are classified as lost repeat Hīnayāna translations. Hayashiya claims that he does not find any ground for these ascriptions by Zhisheng 智昇, except for the identity of the title “Jinxue jing ” with both that listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and that ascribed to Jingsheng. KYL records the length of the extant Jinxue jing as one sheet. According to Hayashiya, this is the same text as the Jinxue jing T798, with a length of one register. The style of T798 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, so KYL’s ascription to Jingsheng is incorrect. Hayashiya maintains that the correct and specific ascription of this text requires further research based on more comprehensive knowledge of styles of scriptural language. Thus, he concludes that, for now the Jinxue jing should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. |
752-756 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jinxue jing 進學經 and related titles is as follows: A Jinxue jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Quan jin xue dao jing 勸進學道經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Jinxue jing in its “Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) regards this text as an offshoot scripture 別生抄經, and lists it among the Hinayana offshoot texts 小乗別生抄. Accordingly, Jingtai 靜泰錄 also includes the title, but without giving the length. All of Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai recorded only one Jinxue jing , with no alternate translations. However, LDSBJ lists three Jinxue jing : a Quan jin xue dao jing /Jin xue dao jing 進學道經 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙 of the Wu 呉period; a Jinxue jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 of the Song 宋 period; and a Quan jin jing 勸進經/Quan jin xue dao jing 勸進學道經 ascribed to Yong gong 勇公 of the Song 宋 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of the above three ascriptions are groundless, for the following reasons: The ascription to Juqu Jingsheng is incorrect, referring to his own elucidation at 707-714, where he argues in detail that all of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of the titles included in Dao’an’s catalogue to Jingsheng are incorrect. His reasons include: 1) any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been produced in the Song period; 2) the source of those ascriptions suggested by Fei Changfang 費長房, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, could not have given such ascriptions, since if it had, Fajing should have mentioned them. Regarding the ascription to Zhi Qian, Hayashiya asserts again that all of LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Zhi Qian are incorrect, referring to his own “Shi ken yakkyo no kenkyu 支謙譯經の研究” [I was unable to indentify this item—AI]. About the ascription to Yong gong, Fei cites as his sources the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, the Zhao catalogue 趙錄, and the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, but Hayashiya argues that all of these could not have given such an ascription. This is because if Changfang really saw the Shixing catalogue and the Zhao catalogue, he must have seen them in the form of quotations in the Fashang catalogue (so only the Fashang catalogue matters in this case); and if there had been an ascription of the Quan jin jing/Quan jin xue dao jing to Yong gong in the Fashang catalogue, Fajing should have mentioned it. In addition, similar to the case of Jingsheng, the claim that an ascription to a person in the Song period was in the Zhao catalogue does not make chronological sense. Thus, Hayashiya claims that all of the three ascriptions given by LDSBJ are groundless. Moreover, he points out that LDSBJ’s addition of two versions itself is doubtful, suggesting that two of the three versions are “ghost scriptures” that do not exist. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ in listing three Jinxue jing , stating that its source is LDSBJ. However, it does not include any of those texts in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Hayashiya thinks that it is because the text was lost at the time of DZKZM due to the categorization of the text as an offshoot scripture 別生抄經 from the time of Yancong. KYL listed the same three titles as LDSBJ and DZKZM. Hayashiya infers that the text was found again at the time of KYL, since the one ascribed to Jingsheng is included in the group of extant repeat Hinayana translations 小乗經重譯 in the Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 of KYL. The other two titles are classified as lost repeat Hinayana translations. Hayashiya claims that he does not find any ground for these ascriptions by Zhisheng 智昇, except for the identity of the title “Jinxue jing ” with both that listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and that ascribed to Jingsheng. KYL records the length of the extant Jinxue jing as one sheet. According to Hayashiya, this is the same text as the Jinxue jing T798, with a length of one register. The style of T798 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, so KYL’s ascription to Jingsheng is incorrect. Hayashiya maintains that the correct and specific ascription of this text requires further research based on more comprehensive knowledge of styles of scriptural language. Thus, he concludes that, for now the Jinxue jing should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0798; 佛說進學經; Quanjin xue dao jing 勸進學道經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: KYL 開元錄: There is a Zhantan shu jing 栴檀樹經 extant, T805. Hayashiya asserts that this text is the one listed in KYL, because the length of T805 is slightly longer than three registers 段, just about the length shown by Zhisheng. The vocabulary and tone of T805 are of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or earlier, not of the Latter Han 後漢 period. |
1242-1243 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this title is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A Zhantan shu jing 栴檀樹經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this text as an anonymous Hinayana text. Yancong, and Jingtai following it, also included Zhantan shu jing in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Thus, the text was extant in the Sui 隋 and Tang 唐 period. Some of the editorial group of Yancong must have seen it, because the catalogue newly classifies it as an offshoot text. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ omitted this title, which Hayashiya claims is unjustified. KYL 開元錄: Zhisheng 智昇 obtained the text of the Zhantan shu jing and listed it in KYL as an extant single Hinayana text. He also shows the date of composition as the Latter Han 後漢 period and also the length as four sheets 紙. There is a Zhantan shu jing 栴檀樹經 extant, T805. Hayashiya asserts that this text is the one listed in KYL, because the length of T805 is slightly longer than three registers 段, just about the length shown by Zhisheng. The vocabulary and tone of T805 are of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or earlier, not of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0805; 佛說栴檀樹經 |
|
The Fa chang zhu jing 法常住經 was listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經錄, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Following Dao'an's catalogue, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong (仁壽録) also included a Fa chang zhu jing. Jingtai 靜泰錄 records its length as two sheets 紙, and the [Da Tang] neidian lu 内典録 and KYL give the same length. Hayashiya infers that the Fa chang zhu jing was two sheets long at the time when it was translated. Hayashiya points out that the Fa chang zhu jing 法常住經 T819 in the Taishō is slightly longer than one and a half registers 段 long, which can be taken as about two sheets long. Moreover, the style of T819 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. From these facts, Hayashiya concludes that T819 is the Fa chang zhu jing listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. He adds that, although LDSBJ 三寶記 excised this title, catalogues should have included the text, as it was clearly extant. |
540-541 |
The Fa chang zhu jing 法常住經 was listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經錄, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Following Dao'an's catalogue, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong (仁壽録) also included a Fa chang zhu jing. Jingtai 靜泰錄 records its length as two sheets 紙, and the [Da Tang] neidian lu 内典録 and KYL give the same length. Hayashiya infers that the Fa chang zhu jing was two sheets long at the time when it was translated. Hayashiya points out that the Fa chang zhu jing 法常住經 T819 in the Taisho is slightly longer than one and a half registers 段 long, which can be taken as about two sheets long. Moreover, the style of T819 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. From these facts, Hayashiya concludes that T819 is the Fa chang zhu jing listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. He adds that, although LDSBJ 三寶記 excised this title, catalogues should have included the text, as it was clearly extant. T0819; 佛說法常住經; 常住經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jiashe jie jing 迦葉戒經 and related titles is as follows: A Jiashe jie jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with Jiashe jin jie jing 迦葉禁戒經 as an alternate title. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Jiashe jin jie jing in its "catalogue of the hīnayāna Vinaya-piṭaka" 小乗毘尼藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same in the group of single Hīnayāna vinaya texts 小乗律單本, as an anonymous scripture. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the same scripture with a length of three sheets 紙. Thus, we can know that the text was extant at least down to the Tang period, since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively. Also, all the catalogues down to Jingtai classified the text as an anonymous scripture with no alternate translations. However, LDSBJ ascribed the Jiashe jie jing/Jiashe jin jie jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Not only that, it also listed another Jiashe jin jie jing, with Mohe biqiu jing 摩訶比丘經 and Zhenwei shamen jing 眞僞沙門經 as alternate titles, and ascribed that title to Tui gong 退公 of the Eastern Jin 東晋. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ, listing also two Jiashe jin jie jing 迦葉禁戒經, one ascribed to Tui gong, and extant, and having the alternate titles Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing, while the other was ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, with no alternate titles, and classified as a lost scripture. Hayashiya then examines the origins of the alternate titles "Mohe biqiu jing" and "Zhenwei shamen jing". First of all, Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 listed a Mohe biqiu jing (with a note “an excerpt” 抄) and Zhenwei shamen jing (with Zhenwei jing 眞僞經 as an alternate title). Hayashiya claims that, since both of these two titles were extant at the time of Sengyou, either the two were indeed different texts, or Sengyou did not notice that they were the same, because the Mohe biqiu jing was an excerpt. In any case, Sengyou treated those two titles as different from the Jiashe jin jie jing. Next, Hayashiya points out that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu regarded "Zhenwei shanmen jing" and "Mohe biqiu jing" as different titles of the same text, listing only the Mohe biqiu jing as an anonymous scripture in its "catalogue of the hīnayāna Vinaya-piṭaka", with "Zhenwei shamen jing" as an alternate title. The Renshou lu also treated the two titles as referring to the same text. Jingtai, too, listed the Zhenwei shamen jing with Mohe biqiu jing as an alternate title, showing its length as three sheets. Hayashiya claims that the record in Yancong and Jingtai verifies that at least one text with those titles was extant in the Sui and Tang period, whose length was three sheets, the same as the length of the Jiashe jin jie jing. Based on these observation, Hayashiya infers that the Jaishe jin jie jing ascribed by LDSBJ to Tui gong (and listed with Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing as alternate titles) was actually the scripture that Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai referred to as Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing. Subsequently, Hayashiya mentions another issue: If the Jaishe jin jie jing ascribed to Tui gong by LDSBJ is the Mohe biqiu jing/Zhenwei shamen jing in Fajing and the other catalogues, DZKZM should have recorded both of the two Jaishe jin jie jing – one listed as the Jiashe jie jing in Dao’an's catalogue, and one ascribed to Tui gong — as extant, following Jingtai. Nonetheless, DZKZM classified one of them as a lost scripture. As shown in the following, Hayashiya appears to think that DZKZM had to classify one of the two Jaishe jin jie jing as lost because there was actually only one Jaishe jin jie jing, which was also called Zhenwei shamen jing or Mohe biqiu jing. DZKZM lists the Zhenwei shamen jing as separate from the Jiashe jin jie jing, in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄, with Mohe biqiu jing as an alternate title. The Jaishe jin jie jing is also listed in the same catalogue, with Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing as alternate titles. The independently-listed Zhenwei shamen jing/Mohe biqiu jing is said to be three sheets long, and ascribed to Huijian 慧簡, following LDSBJ. Hayashiya then points out that the independent Zhenwei shamen jing/Mohe biqiu jing in DZKZM is probably the Jiashe jin jie jing, because the Jiashe jin jie jing also has Zhenwei shamen jing and Mohe biqiu jing as its alternate titles, and both are recorded as having the same length of three sheets. He conjectures that the Jiashe jin jie jing and the Zhenwei shamen jing were listed separately by mistake, because those titles appear so different. In order to support the possibility that all three of these titles refer to the same text, Hayashiya examines the Jiashe jin jie jing in the Taishō (T1469). T1469 is slightly shorter than two and a half registers. Judging from this length, the text could be either or both the Jiashe jin jie jing or the Zhenwei shamen jing, since any text that is recorded as three sheets long in both Jingtai and DZKZM must be shorter than two and a half registers in the Taishō. As for the content of the text, Hayashiya claims that all three titles would be suitable as for T1469: the Buddha teaches Jiashe 迦葉 [Kāśyapa] about four types of Buddhist monks and the precepts they should observed to be "true" monks; and the text also contains the phrase “是時佛語摩訶迦葉比丘言…” (cf. 摩訶比丘). The next question is this: Why did both Fajing, usually careful in avoiding overlapping entries, and Yancong, a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄, treat the Jiashe~ and Mohe~ as different texts? Yancong only lists 29 titles among single Hīnayāna vinaya texts 小乗律單本, leaving little room for such confusion. Hayashiya does not seem to offer an decisive answer to this issue, but conjectures that maybe the Zhenwei shamen jing was an excerpt, like the Mohe biqiu jing listed in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. If so, he claims, it is possible that the identity of the two texts went unnoticed. Hayashiya next examines KYL. Following LDSBJ, KYL lists the Jiashe jin jie jing ascribed to Tiu gong, but as a lost scripture, with Zhenwei~ and Mohe~ as alternate titles. He also lists a Jiashe jin jie jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, but as an extant scripture, also with Zhenwei~ and Mohe~ as alternate titles. However, KYL excises the Zhenwei shamen jing ascribed to Huijian 慧簡, claiming that it is the same text as Jiqu Jingsheng's Jiashe jin jie jing. Thus, KYL regards only one Jiashe jin jie jing (Juqu Jingsheng) as extant. This view is clearly shown in its list of Hīnayāna vinaya texts, where just one 迦葉禁戒經 is shown, with the two alternate titles and a length of three sheets. According to Hayashiya, this view of KYL strongly suggests that there was only ever one Jiashe jin jie jing, often misunderstood as different texts. The ascriptions given to the Jiashe jin jie jing and its variant titles are poorly grounded, according to Hayashiya. For example, while DZKZM ascribed the Jiashe jin jie jing to Tui gong and the Zhenwei shamen jing to Huijian 慧簡, KYL rejected the "Huijian" Zhenwei~ as non-existent, and reascribed Jiashe~ 迦葉禁戒經 to Juqu Jingsheng. Hayashiya claims evidence for those ascriptions is lacking, and style is the only grounds upon which we can determine anything meaningful about the ascription. Hayashiya argues that the style of T1469 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. He adds that, although further research is needed to know more about the history of the scripture, it is certain that T1469 cannot be the work of Juqu Jingsheng, Tui gong, or Huijian. Hayashiya concludes that, since its style matches that of the W. Jin 西晋 period and it is already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, T1469 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. [Note: Hayashiya appears to mean that Dao’an and Sengyou also erred in regarding the Jiashe~, Zhenwei~ and Mohe~ as different texts.] |
742-749 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jiashe jie jing 迦葉戒經 and related titles is as follows: A Jiashe jie jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with Jiashe jin jie jing 迦葉禁戒經 as an alternate title. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Jiashe jin jie jing in its "catalogue of the hinayana Vinaya-pitaka" 小乗毘尼藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same in the group of single Hinayana vinaya texts 小乗律單本, as an anonymous scripture. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the same scripture with a length of three sheets 紙. Thus, we can know that the text was extant at least down to the Tang period, since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively. Also, all the catalogues down to Jingtai classified the text as an anonymous scripture with no alternate translations. However, LDSBJ ascribed the Jiashe jie jing/Jiashe jin jie jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Not only that, it also listed another Jiashe jin jie jing, with Mohe biqiu jing 摩訶比丘經 and Zhenwei shamen jing 眞僞沙門經 as alternate titles, and ascribed that title to Tui gong 退公 of the Eastern Jin 東晋. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 followed LDSBJ, listing also two Jiashe jin jie jing 迦葉禁戒經, one ascribed to Tui gong, and extant, and having the alternate titles Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing, while the other was ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, with no alternate titles, and classified as a lost scripture. Hayashiya then examines the origins of the alternate titles "Mohe biqiu jing" and "Zhenwei shamen jing". First of all, Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 listed a Mohe biqiu jing (with a note “an excerpt” 抄) and Zhenwei shamen jing (with Zhenwei jing 眞僞經 as an alternate title). Hayashiya claims that, since both of these two titles were extant at the time of Sengyou, either the two were indeed different texts, or Sengyou did not notice that they were the same, because the Mohe biqiu jing was an excerpt. In any case, Sengyou treated those two titles as different from the Jiashe jin jie jing. Next, Hayashiya points out that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu regarded "Zhenwei shanmen jing" and "Mohe biqiu jing" as different titles of the same text, listing only the Mohe biqiu jing as an anonymous scripture in its "catalogue of the hinayana Vinaya-pitaka", with "Zhenwei shamen jing" as an alternate title. The Renshou lu also treated the two titles as referring to the same text. Jingtai, too, listed the Zhenwei shamen jing with Mohe biqiu jing as an alternate title, showing its length as three sheets. Hayashiya claims that the record in Yancong and Jingtai verifies that at least one text with those titles was extant in the Sui and Tang period, whose length was three sheets, the same as the length of the Jiashe jin jie jing. Based on these observation, Hayashiya infers that the Jaishe jin jie jing ascribed by LDSBJ to Tui gong (and listed with Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing as alternate titles) was actually the scripture that Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai referred to as Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing. Subsequently, Hayashiya mentions another issue: If the Jaishe jin jie jing ascribed to Tui gong by LDSBJ is the Mohe biqiu jing/Zhenwei shamen jing in Fajing and the other catalogues, DZKZM should have recorded both of the two Jaishe jin jie jing – one listed as the Jiashe jie jing in Dao’an's catalogue, and one ascribed to Tui gong — as extant, following Jingtai. Nonetheless, DZKZM classified one of them as a lost scripture. As shown in the following, Hayashiya appears to think that DZKZM had to classify one of the two Jaishe jin jie jing as lost because there was actually only one Jaishe jin jie jing, which was also called Zhenwei shamen jing or Mohe biqiu jing. DZKZM lists the Zhenwei shamen jing as separate from the Jiashe jin jie jing, in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄, with Mohe biqiu jing as an alternate title. The Jaishe jin jie jing is also listed in the same catalogue, with Mohe biqiu jing and Zhenwei shamen jing as alternate titles. The independently-listed Zhenwei shamen jing/Mohe biqiu jing is said to be three sheets long, and ascribed to Huijian 慧簡, following LDSBJ. Hayashiya then points out that the independent Zhenwei shamen jing/Mohe biqiu jing in DZKZM is probably the Jiashe jin jie jing, because the Jiashe jin jie jing also has Zhenwei shamen jing and Mohe biqiu jing as its alternate titles, and both are recorded as having the same length of three sheets. He conjectures that the Jiashe jin jie jing and the Zhenwei shamen jing were listed separately by mistake, because those titles appear so different. In order to support the possibility that all three of these titles refer to the same text, Hayashiya examines the Jiashe jin jie jing in the Taisho (T1469). T1469 is slightly shorter than two and a half registers. Judging from this length, the text could be either or both the Jiashe jin jie jing or the Zhenwei shamen jing, since any text that is recorded as three sheets long in both Jingtai and DZKZM must be shorter than two and a half registers in the Taisho. As for the content of the text, Hayashiya claims that all three titles would be suitable as for T1469: the Buddha teaches Jiashe 迦葉 [Kasyapa] about four types of Buddhist monks and the precepts they should observed to be "true" monks; and the text also contains the phrase “是時佛語摩訶迦葉比丘言...” (cf. 摩訶比丘). The next question is this: Why did both Fajing, usually careful in avoiding overlapping entries, and Yancong, a catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄, treat the Jiashe~ and Mohe~ as different texts? Yancong only lists 29 titles among single Hinayana vinaya texts 小乗律單本, leaving little room for such confusion. Hayashiya does not seem to offer an decisive answer to this issue, but conjectures that maybe the Zhenwei shamen jing was an excerpt, like the Mohe biqiu jing listed in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. If so, he claims, it is possible that the identity of the two texts went unnoticed. Hayashiya next examines KYL. Following LDSBJ, KYL lists the Jiashe jin jie jing ascribed to Tiu gong, but as a lost scripture, with Zhenwei~ and Mohe~ as alternate titles. He also lists a Jiashe jin jie jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, but as an extant scripture, also with Zhenwei~ and Mohe~ as alternate titles. However, KYL excises the Zhenwei shamen jing ascribed to Huijian 慧簡, claiming that it is the same text as Jiqu Jingsheng's Jiashe jin jie jing. Thus, KYL regards only one Jiashe jin jie jing (Juqu Jingsheng) as extant. This view is clearly shown in its list of Hinayana vinaya texts, where just one 迦葉禁戒經 is shown, with the two alternate titles and a length of three sheets. According to Hayashiya, this view of KYL strongly suggests that there was only ever one Jiashe jin jie jing, often misunderstood as different texts. The ascriptions given to the Jiashe jin jie jing and its variant titles are poorly grounded, according to Hayashiya. For example, while DZKZM ascribed the Jiashe jin jie jing to Tui gong and the Zhenwei shamen jing to Huijian 慧簡, KYL rejected the "Huijian" Zhenwei~ as non-existent, and reascribed Jiashe~ 迦葉禁戒經 to Juqu Jingsheng. Hayashiya claims evidence for those ascriptions is lacking, and style is the only grounds upon which we can determine anything meaningful about the ascription. Hayashiya argues that the style of T1469 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. He adds that, although further research is needed to know more about the history of the scripture, it is certain that T1469 cannot be the work of Juqu Jingsheng, Tui gong, or Huijian. Hayashiya concludes that, since its style matches that of the W. Jin 西晋 period and it is already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, T1469 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. [Note: Hayashiya appears to mean that Dao’an and Sengyou also erred in regarding the Jiashe~, Zhenwei~ and Mohe~ as different texts.] Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1469; 佛說迦葉禁戒經; 眞僞沙門經, 摩訶比丘經, 眞僞經, ; 迦葉戒經; Jiashe jie jing 迦葉戒經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and KYL 開元錄: Taishō: |
1001 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Da'aidao shou cheng jing 大愛道受誠經 is listed in this catalogue as two scrolls 巻 in length, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and KYL 開元錄: Fajing listed a Da'aidao biqiuni jing 大愛道比丘尼經, viz., the Da'aidao shou cheng jing 大愛道受誠經, as an anonymous scripture, and Yancong followed him. KYL also lists the Da'aidao biqiuni jing with Da'aidao shou cheng jing and Da'aidao jing as alternate titles. Taisho: There is extant a Da'aidao biqiuni jing 大愛道比丘尼經 T1478. Hayashiya maintains that the vocabulary of this text is clearly of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, while containing quite a few peculiar words. Hence, Hayashiya concludes, it is natural to regard this text as an anonymous scripture translated in the Liangzhou 涼州 area in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. KYL’s claim that this text was translated in the Liang 涼 period is incorrect. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1478; 大愛道比丘尼經; 大愛道受誠經; 大愛道經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Wu kongbu shi jing 五恐怖世經 is as follows: A Wu kongbu shi jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as an extant anonymous scripture. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Wu kongbu shi jing in its "Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) listed the Wu kongbu shi jing in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded its length as two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that the Wu kongbu shi jing was a short scripture, less than two sheets in length, and shown as extant at least from the Sui to the Tang period. It is classified as an anonymous scripture by all the catalogues of scriptures admitted to the canon 入藏錄 and catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄 down to Jingtai. The Wu kongbu shi jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM recorded the length of it as two sheets. KYL 開元錄 also ascribed the Wu kongbu shi jing to Juqu Jingsheng, and states its length as two sheets. Hayashiya then asserts that the Wu kongbu shi jing T1481 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng is the text that has been called the Wu kongbu shi jing since early times. As for the style of language of T1481, Hayashiya states that the style clearly has the characteristics of scriptures in the W. Jin 西晋 period, and hence the text cannot be by Jingsheng. He concludes that the Wu kongbu shi jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, not only because the style is old, but also because the title was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. |
751-752 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Wu kongbu shi jing 五恐怖世經 is as follows: A Wu kongbu shi jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as an extant anonymous scripture. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included the Wu kongbu shi jing in its "Hinayana sutrapitaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) listed the Wu kongbu shi jing in the group of single Hinayana texts 小乗經單本. Jingtai 靜泰錄 recorded its length as two sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that the Wu kongbu shi jing was a short scripture, less than two sheets in length, and shown as extant at least from the Sui to the Tang period. It is classified as an anonymous scripture by all the catalogues of scriptures admitted to the canon 入藏錄 and catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄 down to Jingtai. The Wu kongbu shi jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM recorded the length of it as two sheets. KYL 開元錄 also ascribed the Wu kongbu shi jing to Juqu Jingsheng, and states its length as two sheets. Hayashiya then asserts that the Wu kongbu shi jing T1481 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng is the text that has been called the Wu kongbu shi jing since early times. As for the style of language of T1481, Hayashiya states that the style clearly has the characteristics of scriptures in the W. Jin 西晋 period, and hence the text cannot be by Jingsheng. He concludes that the Wu kongbu shi jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, not only because the style is old, but also because the title was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1481; 佛說五恐怖世經; 五恐怖經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Shouda jing 首達經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai: LDSBJ 三寶記: KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya argues that the attributions of both Fajing and KYL are not wrong, for the following reasons: In the Taishō, the Sheng jing 生經 T154, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, contains a Foshuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経. This Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経 has a text that contains the words Shouda 首達 and Weixian 維先 (the Shouda jing 首達經 is also called the Weixian Shouda jing 維先首達經). On the other hand, Fajing classified the Shouda jing 首達經 as an extract from the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經, and the category of the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩集 in Fajing does not mean extracts from a single text entitled "Za piyu jing" 雜譬喩經, but rather, extracts from various Piyu jing (plural). This being the case, the category of "za piyu jing" 雜譬喩經 could also unproblematically include the Fo shuo piyu jing of T154. Thus, there is no contradiction in saying that the Shouda jing 首達經 is an extract from both the "za piyu jing" 雜譬喩經 and from the Sheng jing 生經. Hayashiya points out that T154 contains quite a few texts whose vocabulary and tone are different from the majority group, which share the same style. The Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経 is one of those stylistically discrepant texts. Hayashiya suggests that the Fo shuo piyu jing was not yet part of the Sheng jing at the time of Fajing, which explains why Fajing did not mention the Sheng jing in his entry on the Shouda jing. Thus, the Fo shuo piyu jing, at least, should not be considered as translated by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, because its vocabulary and tone are different form the major part of the Sheng jing T154 生經. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that although the Shouda jing 首達經 and the Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩經 that contains it are now in turn part of the Shengjing 生經, which is shown in the Taishō as by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, they should be recorded separately as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
925-928 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Shouda jing 首達經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Shouda jing 首達經 is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai: This text is an extract 抄 from the "Za piyu jing" 雜譬喩經, and Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed it as such. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 adopted Fajing’s classification. Probably the text was extant down to the Sui 隋 period, while no catalogues down to Jingtai could specify the translator. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ attributed the Shouda jing 首達經 to Ba Fazu 白法祖, claiming that it was based on the "old catalogue" 舊錄, but Hayashiya rejects this attribution, because the "old catalogue" 舊錄 did not give such attributions. KYL 開元錄: KYL does not regard the Shouda jing 首達經 as an independent text, stating that it is an extract 抄 from the Shengjing 生經 T154. Thus, the Shouda jing 首達經 is classified as an extract either of the Za piyu jing or of the Sheng jing 生經 T154, as asserted by Fajing and KYL respectively. Hayashiya argues that the attributions of both Fajing and KYL are not wrong, for the following reasons: In the Taisho, the Sheng jing 生經 T154, ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護, contains a Foshuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経. This Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経 has a text that contains the words Shouda 首達 and Weixian 維先 (the Shouda jing 首達經 is also called the Weixian Shouda jing 維先首達經). On the other hand, Fajing classified the Shouda jing 首達經 as an extract from the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經, and the category of the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩集 in Fajing does not mean extracts from a single text entitled "Za piyu jing" 雜譬喩經, but rather, extracts from various Piyu jing (plural). This being the case, the category of "za piyu jing" 雜譬喩經 could also unproblematically include the Fo shuo piyu jing of T154. Thus, there is no contradiction in saying that the Shouda jing 首達經 is an extract from both the "za piyu jing" 雜譬喩經 and from the Sheng jing 生經. Hayashiya points out that T154 contains quite a few texts whose vocabulary and tone are different from the majority group, which share the same style. The Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩経 is one of those stylistically discrepant texts. Hayashiya suggests that the Fo shuo piyu jing was not yet part of the Sheng jing at the time of Fajing, which explains why Fajing did not mention the Sheng jing in his entry on the Shouda jing. Thus, the Fo shuo piyu jing, at least, should not be considered as translated by Dharmaraksa 竺法護, because its vocabulary and tone are different form the major part of the Sheng jing T154 生經. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that although the Shouda jing 首達經 and the Fo shuo piyu jing 佛説譬喩經 that contains it are now in turn part of the Shengjing 生經, which is shown in the Taisho as by Dharmaraksa 竺法護, they should be recorded separately as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T154(55); Piyu jing 譬喩經; Shouda jing 首達經 |
|
LDSBJ is the first source in our record for the claim that Zhu Shixing authored a catalogue of Han texts (the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄), and all later catalogues that discuss this text clearly derive from LDSBJ. Early biographical sources for Zhu Shixing do not mention any catalogue. Hayashiya argues that we should separate for purposes of analysis two questions: 1) Did Zhu Shixing ever author a catalogue? 2) What is the nature and provenance of the supposed Zhu Shixing Han lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts? 1. Hayashiya sees no reason to disbelieve that Zhu Shixing may in fact have compiled some sort of catalogue. In fact, he argues at several points that it is more likely that some tradition circulated that Zhu Shixing did compile a catalogue, because that would have made the forgery of the later catalogue under the same name more plausible (he alludes several times to the assumption that forgers and fraudsters often work with grains of truth). Conversely, it is otherwise harder to account for the fact that a forger might have hung the forgery on Zhu Shixing’s name. In this sense, Hayashiya even suggests that the existence of a later forgery might provide incidental proof that an original catalogue by the same author and title did in fact exist. In this, Hayashiya argues against some other modern scholars (he names Sakaino and Tokiwa), who not only thought that the later catalogue was a forgery, but even thought that the original catalogue never existed (244-246; citing Sakaino, Shina Bukkyō shi kōwa 155, Tokiwa Yakkyō sōroku 73). 2. Hayashiya then considers separately the problem of the nature of the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu, as cited in LDSBJ in support of ascriptions and dates of individual texts. He argues that this catalogue is a later forgery. Hayashiya tabulates the 24 texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ (249-250). All these texts are indeed Han texts, fitting the supposed nature of the catalogue (Hayashiya points out that the LDSBJ note for one more anachronistic text, by Kang Daohe 康道和 of the E. Jin, actually says that the Zhu Shixing Han lu contains the title only with no ascription). However, at least two of the actual texts in question, the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 and the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (lost; this attribution is a mistake for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 [*Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna]; see below), are anachronistic, since content shows these texts to be of the Jin 晉 or later (Hayashiya refers to his own Iyaku kyōrui for details). On these grounds, he agrees with Tokiwa and Sakaino insofar as he also concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu as cited in LDSBJ is a later forgery. Sakaino held that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was forged by Fei Changfang himself, whereas Tokiwa thought it was an earlier forgery merely used by Fei (Hayashiya 252). At the end of a very complex argument, Hayashiya agrees with Tokiwa. Hayashiya’s theories about the forgery of the catalogue are grounded in the assumption that its author was most likely motivated by a context of clashes with Daoism and attendant persecution of Buddhism. In such contexts, Hayashiya holds, Buddhist apologists strove to prove that Buddhism as a whole, and Buddhist texts, had the greatest antiqutiy possible, and greater antiquity than that claimed for Daoist rivals (271-274). In this connection, Hayashiya considers it significant that the Zhu Shixing Han lu is used extensively by Fei to give dates to An Shigao texts, which he says were entirely undated in Dao’an (273-275). On the basis of the various texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ, Hayashiya concludes that it must date between the Jin and the Sui (264). Hayashiya thinks he finds a hint of this polemical purpose behind the forgery in the use of the text by Falin 法琳 in his Po xie lun 破邪論 as support for the legend of Shi Lifang 釋利房, and in LDSBJ’s own use of the text to support the legend of Kāśyapa Mātaṅga. Hayashiya therefore supposes that within this period, the most likely immediate context for the composition of the catalogue was probably the persecutions of Buddhism under either the N. Wei or the N. Zhou (264-266). Of these two possibilities, Hayashiya regards it as most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution (in part because we can discern no influence of the text on CSZJJ). He notes that Fei Changfang, as one of the principal victims and opponents of that persecution, would have been intimately familiar with documents produced under those circumstances (266-267). Hayashiya considers the possibility that LDSBJ’s forged Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed by inserting fraudulent later information into an extant authentic Zhu Shixing text. He suggests that this would be consistent with Fei’s pattern of use of earlier texts, such as the Jiu lu (254-255). However, Hayashiya ultimately concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was entirely a later forgery (278-279). Hayashiya thinks that Fei himself was not the forger of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but was working with material he had found elsewhere, because there are occasions on which it might be useful for Fei to ascribe some information to the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but he does not do so (256-257). Hayashiya also argues against Tokiwa’s conclusion that Fei knew of the Zhu Shixing Han lu via the Baochang lu 寶唱錄, on the following grounds (258-262): 1) If Baochang knew of this catalogue, he would naturally have regarded it as important, but no mention of the catalogue is made in GSZ; since Baochang’s (lost) Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 was one of the principal sources of GSZ, GSZ should mention the catalogue if MSZ did; the fact that GSZ does not mention the catalogue therefore suggests that MSZ did not mention it either, which suggests Baochang had no information about such a text. 2) The LDSBJ notices citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu do not cite the Baochang lu. Hayashiya admits that Fei Changfang often cites a catalogue without citing the proximate source via which he had knowledge of it (as e.g. in the case of Jiu lu via CSZJJ). However, he suggest that for such an important text, we should still expect to see Baochang cited alongside the Zhu Shixing Han lu at least some of the time, if Baochang was Fei’s proximate source. 3) A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭; T2154 (LV) 649a9-15. This prompted Hayashiya to investigate other texts ascribed to Zhu Falan in LDSBJ. Hayashiya shows that the other four of these five texts all appear in the GSZ biography of Tanwulan, 十地斷結佛本生法海藏佛本行四十二章等五部, T2059 (L) 323a12-14; but this fact is not acknowledged by Fei Changfang. This means that all four texts should also be instances of the same error (Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 = *Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna). For the 十地斷結經 (variously 十住斷結經), which is among these texts, Fei Changfang cites the Zhu Shixing Han lu (十地斷結經四卷(或八卷見朱士行漢錄, T2034 (XLIX) 50a5). This casts further doubt on Fei’s use of this catalogue. Occasionally, for other information in GSZ that is not repeated in CSZJJ, we might assume that the source for GSZ was MSZ. However, this cannot be the case here either, as LDSBJ only cites MSZ as a source for one of these five texts. Hayashiya thus concludes that it is most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed under the title of a lost catalogue known to the tradition, but was entirely a new fabrication, composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution, and then introduced to the bibliographic tradition by LDSBJ itself (278-279). |
241-281 |
LDSBJ is the first source in our record for the claim that Zhu Shixing authored a catalogue of Han texts (the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄), and all later catalogues that discuss this text clearly derive from LDSBJ. Early biographical sources for Zhu Shixing do not mention any catalogue. Hayashiya argues that we should separate for purposes of analysis two questions: 1) Did Zhu Shixing ever author a catalogue? 2) What is the nature and provenance of the supposed Zhu Shixing Han lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts? 1. Hayashiya sees no reason to disbelieve that Zhu Shixing may in fact have compiled some sort of catalogue. In fact, he argues at several points that it is more likely that some tradition circulated that Zhu Shixing did compile a catalogue, because that would have made the forgery of the later catalogue under the same name more plausible (he alludes several times to the assumption that forgers and fraudsters often work with grains of truth). Conversely, it is otherwise harder to account for the fact that a forger might have hung the forgery on Zhu Shixing’s name. In this sense, Hayashiya even suggests that the existence of a later forgery might provide incidental proof that an original catalogue by the same author and title did in fact exist. In this, Hayashiya argues against some other modern scholars (he names Sakaino and Tokiwa), who not only thought that the later catalogue was a forgery, but even thought that the original catalogue never existed (244-246; citing Sakaino, Shina Bukkyo shi kowa 155, Tokiwa Yakkyo soroku 73). 2. Hayashiya then considers separately the problem of the nature of the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu, as cited in LDSBJ in support of ascriptions and dates of individual texts. He argues that this catalogue is a later forgery. Hayashiya tabulates the 24 texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ (249-250). All these texts are indeed Han texts, fitting the supposed nature of the catalogue (Hayashiya points out that the LDSBJ note for one more anachronistic text, by Kang Daohe 康道和 of the E. Jin, actually says that the Zhu Shixing Han lu contains the title only with no ascription). However, at least two of the actual texts in question, the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 and the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (lost; this attribution is a mistake for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 [*Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna]; see below), are anachronistic, since content shows these texts to be of the Jin 晉 or later (Hayashiya refers to his own Iyaku kyorui for details). On these grounds, he agrees with Tokiwa and Sakaino insofar as he also concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu as cited in LDSBJ is a later forgery. Sakaino held that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was forged by Fei Changfang himself, whereas Tokiwa thought it was an earlier forgery merely used by Fei (Hayashiya 252). At the end of a very complex argument, Hayashiya agrees with Tokiwa. Hayashiya’s theories about the forgery of the catalogue are grounded in the assumption that its author was most likely motivated by a context of clashes with Daoism and attendant persecution of Buddhism. In such contexts, Hayashiya holds, Buddhist apologists strove to prove that Buddhism as a whole, and Buddhist texts, had the greatest antiqutiy possible, and greater antiquity than that claimed for Daoist rivals (271-274). In this connection, Hayashiya considers it significant that the Zhu Shixing Han lu is used extensively by Fei to give dates to An Shigao texts, which he says were entirely undated in Dao’an (273-275). On the basis of the various texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ, Hayashiya concludes that it must date between the Jin and the Sui (264). Hayashiya thinks he finds a hint of this polemical purpose behind the forgery in the use of the text by Falin 法琳 in his Po xie lun 破邪論 as support for the legend of Shi Lifang 釋利房, and in LDSBJ’s own use of the text to support the legend of Kasyapa Matanga. Hayashiya therefore supposes that within this period, the most likely immediate context for the composition of the catalogue was probably the persecutions of Buddhism under either the N. Wei or the N. Zhou (264-266). Of these two possibilities, Hayashiya regards it as most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution (in part because we can discern no influence of the text on CSZJJ). He notes that Fei Changfang, as one of the principal victims and opponents of that persecution, would have been intimately familiar with documents produced under those circumstances (266-267). Hayashiya considers the possibility that LDSBJ’s forged Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed by inserting fraudulent later information into an extant authentic Zhu Shixing text. He suggests that this would be consistent with Fei’s pattern of use of earlier texts, such as the Jiu lu (254-255). However, Hayashiya ultimately concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was entirely a later forgery (278-279). Hayashiya thinks that Fei himself was not the forger of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but was working with material he had found elsewhere, because there are occasions on which it might be useful for Fei to ascribe some information to the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but he does not do so (256-257). Hayashiya also argues against Tokiwa’s conclusion that Fei knew of the Zhu Shixing Han lu via the Baochang lu 寶唱錄, on the following grounds (258-262): 1) If Baochang knew of this catalogue, he would naturally have regarded it as important, but no mention of the catalogue is made in GSZ; since Baochang’s (lost) Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 was one of the principal sources of GSZ, GSZ should mention the catalogue if MSZ did; the fact that GSZ does not mention the catalogue therefore suggests that MSZ did not mention it either, which suggests Baochang had no information about such a text. 2) The LDSBJ notices citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu do not cite the Baochang lu. Hayashiya admits that Fei Changfang often cites a catalogue without citing the proximate source via which he had knowledge of it (as e.g. in the case of Jiu lu via CSZJJ). However, he suggest that for such an important text, we should still expect to see Baochang cited alongside the Zhu Shixing Han lu at least some of the time, if Baochang was Fei’s proximate source. 3) A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭; T2154 (LV) 649a9-15. This prompted Hayashiya to investigate other texts ascribed to Zhu Falan in LDSBJ. Hayashiya shows that the other four of these five texts all appear in the GSZ biography of Tanwulan, 十地斷結佛本生法海藏佛本行四十二章等五部, T2059 (L) 323a12-14; but this fact is not acknowledged by Fei Changfang. This means that all four texts should also be instances of the same error (Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 = *Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna). For the 十地斷結經 (variously 十住斷結經), which is among these texts, Fei Changfang cites the Zhu Shixing Han lu (十地斷結經四卷(或八卷見朱士行漢錄, T2034 (XLIX) 50a5). This casts further doubt on Fei’s use of this catalogue. Occasionally, for other information in GSZ that is not repeated in CSZJJ, we might assume that the source for GSZ was MSZ. However, this cannot be the case here either, as LDSBJ only cites MSZ as a source for one of these five texts. Hayashiya thus concludes that it is most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed under the title of a lost catalogue known to the tradition, but was entirely a new fabrication, composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution, and then introduced to the bibliographic tradition by LDSBJ itself (278-279). T2034; 歷代三寶紀 |
|
Hayashiya separates two problems: 1) the supposed original Gu lu of Shi Lifang; 2) the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts. 1. Did the supposed Gu lu of Shi Lifang 釋利房, composed under the Qin 秦 dynasty, even exist, and if so, could it have been transmitted and exerted an influence on later catalogues? Hayashiya thinks that there is no way to absolutely rule out the possibility that this catalogue did once exist, but even so, we would have to ask what sort of catalogue it could have been, and how it could have been transmitted. Outside China, the Qin (221-206 BCE) was a period before the recording of Buddhist texts in writing, and the catalogue would therefore have been an oral text. Hayashiya speculates that perhaps it would have been in uddāna (summary verse) format. In China, this period is too early for paper, so if the text was transmitted in writing, it would have been in another medium. Further, this was also supposed to be a period prior to the translation of any texts into Chinese, so we might wonder whether the texts the catalogue listed would have been in other languages, and if so, how Chinese people would have transmitted the catalogue (whether orally, or in writing), and understood it (especially in later generations), if it was in an Indic language. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that whether or not such a catalogue ever existed, it is largely incoherent to suppose that it was transmitted to be used as late as Fei Changfang. Traditions about this original text should therefore be set aside in the consideration of the Gu lu cited by LDSBJ. 2. Hayashiya asks: By what route could Fei Changfang have known the content of this Gu lu, and what was the nature of the text he cites? CSZJJ also cites a Gu lu, but for three of the texts on which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu, CSZJJ does not. Thus, Fei could not have known of the Gu lu exclusively via CSZJJ. However, for four other texts, the Gu lu is cited by both LDSBJ and CSZJJ, which Hayashiya thinks shows that the Gu lu at issue is roughly the same text—which should therefore be a common independent source for both catalogues. Hayashiya lists and analyses the texts for which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu (225-226). These seven texts include texts much later than the Qin (or even Han), and even some texts whose titles include post-Kumārajīva terminology (Hayashiya does not specify which texts he means). The Gu lu therefore cannot be the same catalogue ascribed by legend to Shi Lifang, even if such a text did exist. This dovetails with Hayashiya’s earlier point that even if the Shi Lifang’s Gu lu existed, it could not have been transmitted and used by Fei. And yet, there are passages in which Fei speaks as if he is identifying the two. For example, he refers to the Gu lu as a source in a biographical notice about An Shigao. Here, the confusion is compounded further by the fact that the Gu lu is not cited for a single An Shigao text in the notes on individual texts (229-230). Hayashiya also discusses the nature of this Gu lu in tandem with the nature of the Jiu lu 舊錄 (226-227). According to Fei’s overview of Buddhist bibliographic history in LDSBJ juan 15, a work referred to by the title Jiu lu was supposedly compiled by Liu Xiang 劉向 under the Han. Yet, as with the Gu lu, the pattern of use made of this source in the notes to individual texts shows that the Jiu lu actually cited cannot be the Han text. This then means, however, that Fei does not discuss in his juan 15 survey of bibliographic history the Gu lu and Jiu lu that he actually cites for individual texts—rather, he only discusses under these titles the supposed Shi Lifang and Liu Xiang catalogues. It does not make sense for Fei to omit these important catalogues from his discussion, given the extensive use he makes of them. Thus, for both the Gu lu and the Jiu lu, Fei appears to identify the sources cited as authority for individual texts and ascriptions with very early legendary catalogues of the Qin and Han dynasties, and gives no information about any other texts by the same titles; and yet, it is incoherent to think that he could indeed have been using such sources, even if they existed, from the information he gives about actual texts. |
222-231 |
Hayashiya separates two problems: 1) the supposed original Gu lu of Shi Lifang; 2) the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts. 1. Did the supposed Gu lu of Shi Lifang 釋利房, composed under the Qin 秦 dynasty, even exist, and if so, could it have been transmitted and exerted an influence on later catalogues? Hayashiya thinks that there is no way to absolutely rule out the possibility that this catalogue did once exist, but even so, we would have to ask what sort of catalogue it could have been, and how it could have been transmitted. Outside China, the Qin (221-206 BCE) was a period before the recording of Buddhist texts in writing, and the catalogue would therefore have been an oral text. Hayashiya speculates that perhaps it would have been in uddana (summary verse) format. In China, this period is too early for paper, so if the text was transmitted in writing, it would have been in another medium. Further, this was also supposed to be a period prior to the translation of any texts into Chinese, so we might wonder whether the texts the catalogue listed would have been in other languages, and if so, how Chinese people would have transmitted the catalogue (whether orally, or in writing), and understood it (especially in later generations), if it was in an Indic language. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that whether or not such a catalogue ever existed, it is largely incoherent to suppose that it was transmitted to be used as late as Fei Changfang. Traditions about this original text should therefore be set aside in the consideration of the Gu lu cited by LDSBJ. 2. Hayashiya asks: By what route could Fei Changfang have known the content of this Gu lu, and what was the nature of the text he cites? CSZJJ also cites a Gu lu, but for three of the texts on which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu, CSZJJ does not. Thus, Fei could not have known of the Gu lu exclusively via CSZJJ. However, for four other texts, the Gu lu is cited by both LDSBJ and CSZJJ, which Hayashiya thinks shows that the Gu lu at issue is roughly the same text—which should therefore be a common independent source for both catalogues. Hayashiya lists and analyses the texts for which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu (225-226). These seven texts include texts much later than the Qin (or even Han), and even some texts whose titles include post-Kumarajiva terminology (Hayashiya does not specify which texts he means). The Gu lu therefore cannot be the same catalogue ascribed by legend to Shi Lifang, even if such a text did exist. This dovetails with Hayashiya’s earlier point that even if the Shi Lifang’s Gu lu existed, it could not have been transmitted and used by Fei. And yet, there are passages in which Fei speaks as if he is identifying the two. For example, he refers to the Gu lu as a source in a biographical notice about An Shigao. Here, the confusion is compounded further by the fact that the Gu lu is not cited for a single An Shigao text in the notes on individual texts (229-230). Hayashiya also discusses the nature of this Gu lu in tandem with the nature of the Jiu lu 舊錄 (226-227). According to Fei’s overview of Buddhist bibliographic history in LDSBJ juan 15, a work referred to by the title Jiu lu was supposedly compiled by Liu Xiang 劉向 under the Han. Yet, as with the Gu lu, the pattern of use made of this source in the notes to individual texts shows that the Jiu lu actually cited cannot be the Han text. This then means, however, that Fei does not discuss in his juan 15 survey of bibliographic history the Gu lu and Jiu lu that he actually cites for individual texts—rather, he only discusses under these titles the supposed Shi Lifang and Liu Xiang catalogues. It does not make sense for Fei to omit these important catalogues from his discussion, given the extensive use he makes of them. Thus, for both the Gu lu and the Jiu lu, Fei appears to identify the sources cited as authority for individual texts and ascriptions with very early legendary catalogues of the Qin and Han dynasties, and gives no information about any other texts by the same titles; and yet, it is incoherent to think that he could indeed have been using such sources, even if they existed, from the information he gives about actual texts. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T2034; 歷代三寶紀 |
|
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Following KYL, Hayashiya argues that Wuyoushi jing 無憂施經 is probably just an alternate title for Dharmarakṣa's 阿闍貰女經 (阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經, T337), where what Dao'an 道安 gave as an alternative title was misunderstood by Sengyou 僧祐 as referring to a different text. |
408 n. 16 |
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmaraksa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Following KYL, Hayashiya argues that Wuyoushi jing 無憂施經 is probably just an alternate title for Dharmaraksa's 阿闍貰女經 (阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經, T337), where what Dao'an 道安 gave as an alternative title was misunderstood by Sengyou 僧祐 as referring to a different text. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 Wuyoushi jing 無憂施經; Asheshi nu jing 阿闍貰女經 |
|
The Xiao Asheshi jing 小阿闍世經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya investigates the relations of this reported text and other texts with similar titles. He identifies three texts that might overlap with it: the Asheshi wang shou jue jing 阿闍世王受決經, the Asheshi wang wen wu ni jing 阿闍世王問五逆經 T508, and the Asheshi wang wen chen hen cong he sheng jing 阿闍世王問瞋恨從何生經. 1) Among these three, the Asheshi wang shou jue jing might have also been called the Xiao (小 "lesser, small") Asheshi jing in relation to two other longer texts that have some content in common with it, namely, the "Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經" T626 (Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodanā) translated by Lokakṣema 支讖, and the "retranslation" 更出 of the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 translated by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. 2) As for T508, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu incorrectly identifies this text with the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 T626 translated by Lokakṣema. Even if it is erroneous, this misidentification by Fajing shows that it is also possible to call T508 the "Asheshi wang jing" 阿闍世王經. This suggest the possibility that T508 was also called the "Lesser" (Xiao) Asheshi jing, because the texts translated by Lokakṣema and Dharmarakṣa are longer. Also, the fact that the present Xiao Asheshi jing was classified as non-existent in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures invites the suspicion that the title was actually an alternate name for one of those three texts shown above. However, as 小阿闍世經 is considered not extant, there is no direct evidence to determine which text, if any, is identical with it. Hence, in the current situation we have no option but to retain the present Xiao Asheshi jing 小阿闍世經 as an anonymous scripture in the 西晋 period or earlier. |
523-527 |
The Xiao Asheshi jing 小阿闍世經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya investigates the relations of this reported text and other texts with similar titles. He identifies three texts that might overlap with it: the Asheshi wang shou jue jing 阿闍世王受決經, the Asheshi wang wen wu ni jing 阿闍世王問五逆經 T508, and the Asheshi wang wen chen hen cong he sheng jing 阿闍世王問瞋恨從何生經. 1) Among these three, the Asheshi wang shou jue jing might have also been called the Xiao (小 "lesser, small") Asheshi jing in relation to two other longer texts that have some content in common with it, namely, the "Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經" T626 (Ajatasatrukaukrtyavinodana) translated by Lokaksema 支讖, and the "retranslation" 更出 of the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 translated by Dharmaraksa 竺法護. 2) As for T508, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu incorrectly identifies this text with the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 T626 translated by Lokaksema. Even if it is erroneous, this misidentification by Fajing shows that it is also possible to call T508 the "Asheshi wang jing" 阿闍世王經. This suggest the possibility that T508 was also called the "Lesser" (Xiao) Asheshi jing, because the texts translated by Lokaksema and Dharmaraksa are longer. Also, the fact that the present Xiao Asheshi jing was classified as non-existent in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures invites the suspicion that the title was actually an alternate name for one of those three texts shown above. However, as 小阿闍世經 is considered not extant, there is no direct evidence to determine which text, if any, is identical with it. Hence, in the current situation we have no option but to retain the present Xiao Asheshi jing 小阿闍世經 as an anonymous scripture in the 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Xiao Asheshi jing 小阿闍世經 |
|
The Xiao Xulai jing 小須賴經 ("Lesser Sūrataparipṛcchā") is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. According to Hayashiya, Tokiwa claims that the Xiao Xulai jing must have been translated by either Bo Yan 白延, Zhi Qian 支謙, Dharmarakṣa 法護 or Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. However, Hayashiya rejects all four of these options for the following reasons: 1) He argues that the text must not be Guṇabhadra's translation because it was in Dao'an's list (which would be anachronistic). 2) The translation by Bo Yan 白延 is identical with the existent Sūrataparipṛcchā, Xulai jing 須頼經 T329, translated by Zhi Shilun 支施崙, and thus the version by Bo Yan 白延 in fact does not exist. 3) Dao'an was aware of its existence of the translation by Dharmarakṣa, and so that version cannot be this Xiao Xulai jing, which is listed separately by Dao'an. 4) Similarly, the version by Zhi Qian 支謙 was also known to Dao'an. In addition, the Zhi Qian version is actually another extant text, the Sūrataparipṛcchā 須頼經 T328, which is listed as translated by Bo Yan 白延 (for further evidence and discussion, Hayashiya refers to his own work, Hayashiya1945, Chapter 3). Thus, Hayashiya maintains that KYL is correct in recording the Xiao Xulai jing as an anonymous scripture, although he maintains that the date at which it was produced could have been earlier than the W. Jin period shown by KYL. It is better to say that it was translated in the W. Jin or the Wei-Wu period, because the text has been lost since a very early stage. |
527-530 |
The Xiao Xulai jing 小須賴經 ("Lesser Suratapariprccha") is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. According to Hayashiya, Tokiwa claims that the Xiao Xulai jing must have been translated by either Bo Yan 白延, Zhi Qian 支謙, Dharmaraksa 法護 or Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅. However, Hayashiya rejects all four of these options for the following reasons: 1) He argues that the text must not be Gunabhadra's translation because it was in Dao'an's list (which would be anachronistic). 2) The translation by Bo Yan 白延 is identical with the existent Suratapariprccha, Xulai jing 須頼經 T329, translated by Zhi Shilun 支施崙, and thus the version by Bo Yan 白延 in fact does not exist. 3) Dao'an was aware of its existence of the translation by Dharmaraksa, and so that version cannot be this Xiao Xulai jing, which is listed separately by Dao'an. 4) Similarly, the version by Zhi Qian 支謙 was also known to Dao'an. In addition, the Zhi Qian version is actually another extant text, the Suratapariprccha 須頼經 T328, which is listed as translated by Bo Yan 白延 (for further evidence and discussion, Hayashiya refers to his own work, Hayashiya1945, Chapter 3). Thus, Hayashiya maintains that KYL is correct in recording the Xiao Xulai jing as an anonymous scripture, although he maintains that the date at which it was produced could have been earlier than the W. Jin period shown by KYL. It is better to say that it was translated in the W. Jin or the Wei-Wu period, because the text has been lost since a very early stage. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Xiao Xulai jing 小須賴經, "Lesser Suratapariprccha" |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 is as follows: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Taishō: Hayashiya concludes that all attributions of translators to the different versions of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 should be omitted, because the source of those attributions, viz., LDSBJ, gives no ground the attributions it provides. Accordingly, probably the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 listed in CSZJJ was an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed on Dao’an’s list. The Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 is probably of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the W. Jin 西晋 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone. The title Yichu shi shan shi e jing may well just have been an alternate title of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, but since there is no decisive evidence either way, Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 should be retained as an independent title. (And if, as LDSBJ states, this title really was included in Zhu Daozu's Wu catalogue 竺道祖呉錄, it would be classified as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period or earlier.) |
930-938 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: A Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and extant at the time of Sengyou. CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Sengyou also lists an Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 in the category of unseen texts. Although he did not see it, it is titled yichu 異出 in the source catalogue he used, and therefore, the text is highly likely to be different from the Shi shan shi e jing. Also, there is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Thus, Sengyou lists three alternate translations of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經. There is a possibility that the unseen Yichu shi shan shi e jing was the same text as one of the others, but it is difficult to determine the relation between that unseen text and the other two. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as the same text, and did not list the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經. However, both the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing were extant at the time of Sengyou, and listed separately, so Sengyou and Fajing appear to disagree about the relation between the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. This issue is difficult to adjudicate, since both CSZJJ and Fajing contain mistakes. Hayashiya cannot find a reasonable explanation for the absence of the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in Fajing. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and made only a single entry for the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經. Yancong included the text in the group of Hinayana "offshoot texts" 別生抄, since the text available at the time of Yancong did not have the format usual for independent texts. Because of this, Jingtai did not show the length of the text. In any case, down to Jingtai, all the catalogues show the texts as anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ lists all of the three titles shown by Sengyou: a Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度, another Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 (referring to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 of CSZJJ) as translated by Tanwulan 曇無蘭, and a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects all of these attributions as groundless. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: DZKZM shows four entries for the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and related titles: adding to the titles in LDSBJ another Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度. DZKZM states that the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is shown in LDSBJ, but LDSBJ shows the Shi shan shi e jing as his, but not a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, so Hayashiya concludes that this new entry on a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is redundant with the Shi shan shi e jing by Zhi Fadu. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists the three titles shown in LDSBJ, while ignoring DZKZM’s redundant fourth entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. However, In the Korean edition of the Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄, Zhisheng 智昇 lists two Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, the one extant, and the other lost. Thus, there are four entries related to the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 in the Korean edition. Hayashiya explains this oddity as a simple mistake that Zhisheng 智昇 made when he found the text of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, which was once thought lost: Probably Zhisheng forgot to delete the entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing as a lost text when he made another entry showing it as extant. Taisho: There is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 extant in the Taisho. Its vocabulary and tone are clearly of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period. The number of good things and bad given in that text are eleven each, rather than ten as the term "shi shan shi e" 十善十悪 suggests. Further, the phrase "shi shan shi e" does not appear in the text even once. Thus, Hayashiya speculates that, if Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing is an alternate title of either the Shi shan shi e jing or the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in CSZJJ, it is more likely that it would apply to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing, sincethe term "shi shan shi e" does not straightforwardly match the content of T729. Hayashiya concludes that all attributions of translators to the different versions of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 should be omitted, because the source of those attributions, viz., LDSBJ, gives no ground the attributions it provides. Accordingly, probably the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 listed in CSZJJ was an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed on Dao’an’s list. The Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 is probably of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the W. Jin 西晋 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone. The title Yichu shi shan shi e jing may well just have been an alternate title of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, but since there is no decisive evidence either way, Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 should be retained as an independent title. (And if, as LDSBJ states, this title really was included in Zhu Daozu's Wu catalogue 竺道祖呉錄, it would be classified as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period or earlier.) Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 |
|
The Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録, but not in Fajing 法經録 and the Renshou lu 仁壽録. The two did not include it probably because the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 was rightly regarded as the same as the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. This identification was initially made by Sengyou 僧祐, who includes the Zhangzhe weishi suowen pusa xiuxing jing 長者威施所問菩薩修行經 in his list of anonymous and miscellaneous scriptures 失譯雑經録, stating that it is also called Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經 or Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. The Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 is to be identified with the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330. Hayashiya rejects the ascriptions in LDSBJ (Fei Changfang) and in KYL 開元録, and also points out that the Taisho is incorrect in showing Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330 as translated by Bo Fazu 白法祖譯, since this is one of the groundless ascriptions made in LDSBJ and KYL. |
493-496 |
The Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録, but not in Fajing 法經録 and the Renshou lu 仁壽録. The two did not include it probably because the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 was rightly regarded as the same as the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. This identification was initially made by Sengyou 僧祐, who includes the Zhangzhe weishi suowen pusa xiuxing jing 長者威施所問菩薩修行經 in his list of anonymous and miscellaneous scriptures 失譯雑經録, stating that it is also called Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經 or Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. The Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 is to be identified with the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330. Hayashiya rejects the ascriptions in LDSBJ (Fei Changfang) and in KYL 開元録, and also points out that the Taisho is incorrect in showing Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330 as translated by Bo Fazu 白法祖譯, since this is one of the groundless ascriptions made in LDSBJ and KYL. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Zhangzhe weishi jing, 長者威勢經 |
|
The “Zhao catalogue” 趙錄 in 1 juan (lost) is also called the catalogue of the two Zhao (kingdoms) 二趙經錄. Hayashiya points out that a brief description of this catalogue is given by LDSBJ and the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, which were used by Zhisheng and Yuanzhao 圓照. According to those descriptions, the Zhao catalogue was an anonymous catalogue of scriptures that were popular in the region of the two Zhao kingdoms. (326) Hayashiya hypothesizes that if there was a catalogue of popular scriptures in the two Zhao periods, it would have a strong influence on catalogues such as Dao’an’s and Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度, because scriptural translation was pursued very actively during those periods (from the end of the W. Jin to the beginning of the E. Jin). For example, Dharmarakṣa was most active at the beginning of the Former Zhao, and An Faqin 安法欽 and Bo Fazu 帛法祖 were also producing their works in that period. (326) However, Hayashiya maintains that the Zhao catalogue did not provide ascriptions for the scriptures it listed. His argument can be summarized as follows. First, Hayashiya offers a list of ten titles for which the Zhao catalogue is cited in LDSBJ (Hayashiya also notes which other catalogues are cited): 佛開解梵志阿颰經 1 juan (T20): ascribed to Shi Fayong, 釋法勇 citing only theZhao catalogue; Hayashiya states that these ten scriptures are not very important, but argues that there is a possibility that this was just a portion of the content of the Zhao catalogue, since reference to that catalogue might have been omitted when other catalogues such as Dao’an’s listed the same titles with more detail than the Zhao catalogue. Hayashiya also points out that the Zhao catalogue and the Shixing catalogue had gone missing by the Sui period. In LDSBJ , the Zhao catalogue is always cited together with either or both of the Fashang catalogue or the Shixing catalogue (except for the case of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20). Therefore, it is probable that the Shixing catalogue cited the Zhao catalogue first, the Fashang catalogue then cited the Shixing catalogue citing the Zhao catalogue, and LDSBJ referred to the Fashang catalogue, which survived until the Tang period. (326-328) Subsequently, Hayashiya investigates whether the ascriptions for which LDSBJ cites the Zhao catalogue were really provided by the Zhao catalogue or not. Hayashiya compares how Fajing (and CSZJJ) record the same titles, since Fajing must also have consulted the Zhao catalogue, and the ascriptions in LDSBJ should therefore be in Fajing as well. Hayashiya presents this comparison as follows: 佛開解梵志阿颰經,釋法勇 (LDSBJ) = 梵志阿颰經 anonymous (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) Nine of the ten titles above are classified as anonymous by Fajing, and therefore, Hayashiya reasons, the ascriptions of them in LDSBJ were not included in the Fashang catalogue, but added by Fei himself. Hayashiya also argues that even the only exception, the Yuedeng sanmei jing 月燈三昧經 (T639), was probably ascribed to Xian gong by the Fashang catalogue but not by the Zhao catalogue. This is because in the entry for the Yuedeng sanmei jing, Fei refers only to the Zhao catalogue and the Fashang catalogue, but not to the Shixing catalogue, and it is thus more reasonable to assume that the ascription of the Yuedeng sanmei jing to Xian gong was not in the Shixing catalogue, and hence actually not in the Zhao catalogue either. Hayashiya concludes that since the Fashang catalogue did not provide ascriptions for any scripture that was not in the Shixing catalogue, except for the Yuedeng sanmei jing, it is safe to assume that the Shixing catalogue, and accordingly the Zhao catalogue as well, did not give ascriptions for scriptures at all. As such, the ascriptions of the nine titles other than the Yuedeng sanmei jing must have been added by Fei himself, and should not be regarded as very reliable (Hayashiya adds that the credibility of the ascription of the Yuedeng sanmei jing to Xian gong should be determined separately, by evaluating the quality of the Fashan catalogue). (328-330) |
326-330 |
The “Zhao catalogue” 趙錄 in 1 juan (lost) is also called the catalogue of the two Zhao (kingdoms) 二趙經錄. Hayashiya points out that a brief description of this catalogue is given by LDSBJ and the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, which were used by Zhisheng and Yuanzhao 圓照. According to those descriptions, the Zhao catalogue was an anonymous catalogue of scriptures that were popular in the region of the two Zhao kingdoms. (326) Hayashiya hypothesizes that if there was a catalogue of popular scriptures in the two Zhao periods, it would have a strong influence on catalogues such as Dao’an’s and Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度, because scriptural translation was pursued very actively during those periods (from the end of the W. Jin to the beginning of the E. Jin). For example, Dharmaraksa was most active at the beginning of the Former Zhao, and An Faqin 安法欽 and Bo Fazu 帛法祖 were also producing their works in that period. (326) However, Hayashiya maintains that the Zhao catalogue did not provide ascriptions for the scriptures it listed. His argument can be summarized as follows. First, Hayashiya offers a list of ten titles for which the Zhao catalogue is cited in LDSBJ (Hayashiya also notes which other catalogues are cited): 佛開解梵志阿颰經 1 juan (T20): ascribed to Shi Fayong, 釋法勇 citing only theZhao catalogue; 曰難經 1 juan (cf. T537): ascribed to Shi Songgong 釋嵩公, also citing the Shixing catalogue 始興錄; 蓱沙王五願經 1 juan (T511): ascribed to Shi Songgong 釋嵩公, also citing the Shixing catalogue; 迦葉結集戒經 1 juan: ascribed to Shi Songgong 釋嵩公, also citing the Shixing catalogue; 菩薩所生地經 2 juan: ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅. also citing the Shixing catalogue; 空淨三昧經 1 juan: ascribed to Yong gong 勇公, also citing the Shixing catalogue and the Fashang catalogue; 車匿經 1 juan: ascribed to Yong gong, also citing the Shixing catalogue and the Fashang catalogue; 勸進學道經 1 juan: ascribed to Yong gong, also citing the Shixing catalogue and the Fashang catalogue; 梵女首意經 1 juan (cf. T567): ascribed to Yong gong, also citing the Shixing catalogue and the Fashang catalogue; and 月燈三昧經 1 juan T639: ascribed to Xian gong, also citing the Fashang catalogue. Hayashiya states that these ten scriptures are not very important, but argues that there is a possibility that this was just a portion of the content of the Zhao catalogue, since reference to that catalogue might have been omitted when other catalogues such as Dao’an’s listed the same titles with more detail than the Zhao catalogue. Hayashiya also points out that the Zhao catalogue and the Shixing catalogue had gone missing by the Sui period. In LDSBJ , the Zhao catalogue is always cited together with either or both of the Fashang catalogue or the Shixing catalogue (except for the case of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20). Therefore, it is probable that the Shixing catalogue cited the Zhao catalogue first, the Fashang catalogue then cited the Shixing catalogue citing the Zhao catalogue, and LDSBJ referred to the Fashang catalogue, which survived until the Tang period. (326-328) Subsequently, Hayashiya investigates whether the ascriptions for which LDSBJ cites the Zhao catalogue were really provided by the Zhao catalogue or not. Hayashiya compares how Fajing (and CSZJJ) record the same titles, since Fajing must also have consulted the Zhao catalogue, and the ascriptions in LDSBJ should therefore be in Fajing as well. Hayashiya presents this comparison as follows: 佛開解梵志阿颰經,釋法勇 (LDSBJ) = 梵志阿颰經 anonymous (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) 曰難經, 釋嵩公 (LDSBJ) = 越難經/曰難經 anonymous (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) 蓱沙王五願經, 釋嵩公 (LDSBJ) = 蓱沙王五願經 anonymous (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) 迦葉結集戒經, 釋嵩公 (LDSBJ) = unlisted (Fajing) = unlisted (CSZJJ) 菩薩所生地經, 聖堅 (LDSBJ) = unlisted (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) 空淨三昧經, 勇公 (LDSBJ) = 空淨三昧經 anonymous (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) 車匿經 , 勇公 (LDSBJ) = 車匿經 anonymous (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) 勸進學道經, 勇公 (LDSBJ) = unlisted (Fajing) = unlisted (CSZJJ) 梵女首意經, 勇公 (LDSBJ) = unlisted (Fajing) = unlisted (CSZJJ) 月燈三昧經, 先公 (LDSBJ) = 月燈三昧經, 先公 (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) Nine of the ten titles above are classified as anonymous by Fajing, and therefore, Hayashiya reasons, the ascriptions of them in LDSBJ were not included in the Fashang catalogue, but added by Fei himself. Hayashiya also argues that even the only exception, the Yuedeng sanmei jing 月燈三昧經 (T639), was probably ascribed to Xian gong by the Fashang catalogue but not by the Zhao catalogue. This is because in the entry for the Yuedeng sanmei jing, Fei refers only to the Zhao catalogue and the Fashang catalogue, but not to the Shixing catalogue, and it is thus more reasonable to assume that the ascription of the Yuedeng sanmei jing to Xian gong was not in the Shixing catalogue, and hence actually not in the Zhao catalogue either. Hayashiya concludes that since the Fashang catalogue did not provide ascriptions for any scripture that was not in the Shixing catalogue, except for the Yuedeng sanmei jing, it is safe to assume that the Shixing catalogue, and accordingly the Zhao catalogue as well, did not give ascriptions for scriptures at all. As such, the ascriptions of the nine titles other than the Yuedeng sanmei jing must have been added by Fei himself, and should not be regarded as very reliable (Hayashiya adds that the credibility of the ascription of the Yuedeng sanmei jing to Xian gong should be determined separately, by evaluating the quality of the Fashan catalogue). (328-330) Zhao catalogue 趙錄 |
|
The full title of the Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 1 juan (lost) is 東晋沙門支敏度經論都錄 (“Complete catalogue of the sūtras and śāstras [by] the Eastern Jin śramaṇera Zhi Mindu”). It is also called the the Jing lun dou lun 經論都錄. Hayashiya points out that a brief description of this catalogue is mentioned in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in the Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳. Although this catalogue was still extant at the time of Huijiao 慧皎, it went missing by the Sui period. As such, LDSBJ classified the Zhi Mindu catalogue as one of the unseen catalogues 未見經錄 and did not mention its content. However, Daoxuan 道宣 states in the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 that there was a Bie lu 別錄, also compiled by Zhi Mindu, separate from the Dou lu 都錄. KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 followed the Da Tang neidian lu in that regard. (305-306) Hayashiya maintains that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was a reliable catalogue. This is because the ascriptions of most of the fifteen titles for which it is cited in LDSBJ (listed 316-318) coincide with titles given in Dao’an’s catalogue, and the ascriptions of the rest are either included in Sengyou’s CSZJJ, or regarded by Hayashiya as probably correct. Hayashiya also infers that the Zhi Mindu catalogue listed many more titles than the titles for which it was cited in extant catalogues, including anonymous and missing scriptures, because the catalogue was missing by the Sui period, and all citations of it in extant catalogues are based on some another missing catalogue as an intermediate source. (316-320) Hayashiya’s major claims about the Zhi Mindu catalogue are: - It was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. [Note: Hayashiya's only evidence for Zhi Mindu's catalogue in CSZJJ appears to be mentions of Zhi Mindu's own synoptic sūtras, ascriptions which he thinks it safe to presume were taken from Zhi Mindu's catalogue itself, 319. See further below. --- MR.] Fei thought that it was produced at the end of W. JIn period, due to his confusion between Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period and Shengjian 聖堅 who was active under the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦; - The Zhi Mindu catalogue was probably divided into a part for ascribed scriptures (bie lu 別錄) and one for anonymous scriptures, and the word Dou lu 都錄 was used to refer to the catalogue as a whole; and - Dao’an probably did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Hayashiya’s arguments can be summarizes as follows: The date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue Hayashiya examines the issue of the date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue and argues that the catalogue was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. A later date suggested by LDSBJ and other catalogues is incorrect, and stems from the confusion of Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period with Shengjian 聖堅 of the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦. According to Hayashiya, the GSZ description and notes transmitted by Sengyou’s in CSZJJ for the synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩詰經 and the synoptic Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 合首楞嚴經 are our most reliable sources about the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Those materials indicate that Zhi Mindu was active at the time of Huidi 惠帝 of the W. Jin (291-306CE) and Chengdi 成帝 of the E. Jin (326-342CE). However, LDSBJ and the catalogues that followed it treat the Zhi Mindu catalogue as slightly younger. Hayashiya presents the chronological order of the catalogues as given in the Da Tang neidian lu and KYL (308). There, the Zhi Mindu catalogue is located between the Zhu Daozu catalogue 竺道祖錄 and the Wang Zong catalogue 王宗錄, which means that the Zhi Mindu catalogue is regarded as compiled near the end of the W. Jin. According to Hayashiya, one plausible reason for Zhisheng and Daoxuan to assume that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was produced around that time is the fact that LDSBJ records that some works of Shengjian of the Qifu Qin, namely, the Tong Jieye jie nan jing 僮迦葉解難經 and the Qi nü ben jing 七女本經 (cf. T556), were included in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, However, Shengjian is said to have worked in the Taichu 太初 era of the Qifu Qin (388-401 CE). Hayashiya points out that this date is practically incompatible with the one given by GSZ and CSZJJ. (307-310) Hayashiya consequently argues that Fei was mistaken in thinking that the the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nü ben jing mentioned in the Zhi Mindu catalogue were translated in the time of the Qifu Qin, because Fei mistook two different translators, Fajian and Shengjiang, for the same person: - While LDSBJ and other catalogues following it regarded Fajian and Shengjian as one and the same person, Fajing considered the two to be different persons. - Fajing presents Fajian as active in the Jin period and Shengjian as active under the Qifu Qin. Fajing lists 5 titles ascribed to Fajian and 3 titles to Shengjian (Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 阿難問事佛吉凶經 in 1 juan T492 to Fajian 法堅 of the Qifu Qin in Fajing must be a simple mistake by someone among the “twenty eminent scholars” 二十大徳 who compiled the catalogue, and should be understood to refer to Shengjian instead of Fajian) (the list is on 312-313). - Among the 5 titles ascribed to Fajian by Fajing, 4 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scripture, so it is safe to say that those titles ascribed to Fajian were indeed translated in the W. Jin or earlier (and thus not under the Qifu Qin). - None of the three titles ascribed to Shengjian was included in Dao’an [which suggests that they were translated after Dao’an’s time]. In addition, one of the three titles, the *Ākāśagarbhaparipṛcchā 虚空藏所問經 (cf. T404), is ascribed to Shengjian by Sengyou. - Fajian 法堅 and Shengjian cannot be the same person, since they are too far apart in time. - The fourteen titles that Fei lists as Shengjian’s translation include works of more than one person. For example, the Luomojie jing 羅摩伽經 T294 translated under the Qifu Qin, the Taizi Xudamo jing 太子須大拏經 T171 and Shanzi jing 睒子經 T171 of the W. Jin differ greatly in both vocabulary and style. Hence, Fei’s list of Shengjian’s translations does not consist of the works of only one person. (310-314) As for the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nü ben jing, Hayashiya claims that they should be re-ascribed to Fajian, although their dates are difficult to determine, since the texts are lost and not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. This is because, 1) the Zhi Mindu catalogue, as reported by the two intermediate sources, is reliable; and; 2) Fei’s ascription is incorrect, and based upon his confusion of Fajiang with Shengjian. (314-315) Dou lu and Bie lu Although the Zhi Mindu catalogue went missing before the time of Daoxuan’s DTNDL, he is honest in recording information, and might have had some sources stating that there were two Zhi Mindu catalogues. Hayashiya supposes that the Dou lu 都錄 was a general catalogue and the Bie lu 別錄a catalogue of scriptures with ascriptions, sorted by translator, as the names suggests. (305-307). Hayashiya presents three possibilities regarding the Dou lu and Bie lu: 1) Zhi Mindu might have recorded scriptures as he found them, over time, and details might have been added to the manuscript later. With this method, the division into Dou lu and Bie lu would not be needed; 2) While working as described in 1, Zhi Mindu might also have compiled a separate section consisting only of ascribed scriptures. In this case, the comprehensive part (1) would be called Dou lu, and the separate part for ascribed scriptures be called the Bie lu; 3) Zhi Mindu might have separated entirely the part for ascribed scriptures and that for anonymous scriptures. In such a case, the catalogue as a whole would be called Dou lu and the part of scriptures with ascriptions Bie lu. (320-321) Hayashiya favours (3). Only that option explains peculiarities in the way the Zhi Mindu catalogue is referred to or described in later catalogues: Daoxuan asserts that there was indeed a Bie lu; Fei seems unaware of or indifferent to the existence of two separate portions of the catalogue; Fei records a Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 in 1 juan. (321-322) The relation of Zhi Mindu’s catalogue to Dao’an Hayashiya ends his examination on the Zhi Mindu catalogue by discussing its possible relation to Dao’an’s catalogues. He argues that, although Zhi Mindu and Dao’an were not far apart geographically, Dao’an did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Hayashiya first finds that out of twenty or so scriptures known to have been in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, six are not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. Hayashiya claims that, even though Dao’an did not include scriptures that he did not directly see in his catalogue, the non-inclusion of six titles out of 20 or so is too significant to suppose that Dao’an actually saw the Zhi Mindu catalogue. (323-324) Subsequently, Hayashiya explains that Zhi Mindu compiled his catalogue in a region not far from Dao’an: Based on a passage in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in GSZ, Hayashiya infers that Zhi Mindu probably lived near Yuzhang shan 豫章山, south of the Lu shan 廬山 region, because Sengyuan settled there and Zhi Mindu accompanied him (at least to the Yangzi 揚子 river). Dao’an lived in Xiangyang 襄陽, not far away. |
305-325 |
The full title of the Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 1 juan (lost) is 東晋沙門支敏度經論都錄 (“Complete catalogue of the sutras and sastras [by] the Eastern Jin sramanera Zhi Mindu”). It is also called the the Jing lun dou lun 經論都錄. Hayashiya points out that a brief description of this catalogue is mentioned in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in the Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳. Although this catalogue was still extant at the time of Huijiao 慧皎, it went missing by the Sui period. As such, LDSBJ classified the Zhi Mindu catalogue as one of the unseen catalogues 未見經錄 and did not mention its content. However, Daoxuan 道宣 states in the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 that there was a Bie lu 別錄, also compiled by Zhi Mindu, separate from the Dou lu 都錄. KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 followed the Da Tang neidian lu in that regard. (305-306) Hayashiya maintains that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was a reliable catalogue. This is because the ascriptions of most of the fifteen titles for which it is cited in LDSBJ (listed 316-318) coincide with titles given in Dao’an’s catalogue, and the ascriptions of the rest are either included in Sengyou’s CSZJJ, or regarded by Hayashiya as probably correct. Hayashiya also infers that the Zhi Mindu catalogue listed many more titles than the titles for which it was cited in extant catalogues, including anonymous and missing scriptures, because the catalogue was missing by the Sui period, and all citations of it in extant catalogues are based on some another missing catalogue as an intermediate source. (316-320) Hayashiya’s major claims about the Zhi Mindu catalogue are: - It was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. [Note: Hayashiya's only evidence for Zhi Mindu's catalogue in CSZJJ appears to be mentions of Zhi Mindu's own synoptic sutras, ascriptions which he thinks it safe to presume were taken from Zhi Mindu's catalogue itself, 319. See further below. --- MR.] Fei thought that it was produced at the end of W. JIn period, due to his confusion between Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period and Shengjian 聖堅 who was active under the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦; - The Zhi Mindu catalogue was probably divided into a part for ascribed scriptures (bie lu 別錄) and one for anonymous scriptures, and the word Dou lu 都錄 was used to refer to the catalogue as a whole; and - Dao’an probably did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Hayashiya’s arguments can be summarizes as follows: The date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue Hayashiya examines the issue of the date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue and argues that the catalogue was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. A later date suggested by LDSBJ and other catalogues is incorrect, and stems from the confusion of Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period with Shengjian 聖堅 of the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦. According to Hayashiya, the GSZ description and notes transmitted by Sengyou’s in CSZJJ for the synoptic Vimalakirti-nirdesa 合維摩詰經 and the synoptic Suramgamasamadhi-sutra 合首楞嚴經 are our most reliable sources about the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Those materials indicate that Zhi Mindu was active at the time of Huidi 惠帝 of the W. Jin (291-306CE) and Chengdi 成帝 of the E. Jin (326-342CE). However, LDSBJ and the catalogues that followed it treat the Zhi Mindu catalogue as slightly younger. Hayashiya presents the chronological order of the catalogues as given in the Da Tang neidian lu and KYL (308). There, the Zhi Mindu catalogue is located between the Zhu Daozu catalogue 竺道祖錄 and the Wang Zong catalogue 王宗錄, which means that the Zhi Mindu catalogue is regarded as compiled near the end of the W. Jin. According to Hayashiya, one plausible reason for Zhisheng and Daoxuan to assume that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was produced around that time is the fact that LDSBJ records that some works of Shengjian of the Qifu Qin, namely, the Tong Jieye jie nan jing 僮迦葉解難經 and the Qi nu ben jing 七女本經 (cf. T556), were included in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, However, Shengjian is said to have worked in the Taichu 太初 era of the Qifu Qin (388-401 CE). Hayashiya points out that this date is practically incompatible with the one given by GSZ and CSZJJ. (307-310) Hayashiya consequently argues that Fei was mistaken in thinking that the the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nu ben jing mentioned in the Zhi Mindu catalogue were translated in the time of the Qifu Qin, because Fei mistook two different translators, Fajian and Shengjiang, for the same person: - Shengjian of the Qifu Qin is recorded already in CSZJJ by Sengyou. - While LDSBJ and other catalogues following it regarded Fajian and Shengjian as one and the same person, Fajing considered the two to be different persons. - Fajing presents Fajian as active in the Jin period and Shengjian as active under the Qifu Qin. Fajing lists 5 titles ascribed to Fajian and 3 titles to Shengjian (Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 阿難問事佛吉凶經 in 1 juan T492 to Fajian 法堅 of the Qifu Qin in Fajing must be a simple mistake by someone among the “twenty eminent scholars” 二十大徳 who compiled the catalogue, and should be understood to refer to Shengjian instead of Fajian) (the list is on 312-313). - Among the 5 titles ascribed to Fajian by Fajing, 4 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scripture, so it is safe to say that those titles ascribed to Fajian were indeed translated in the W. Jin or earlier (and thus not under the Qifu Qin). - None of the three titles ascribed to Shengjian was included in Dao’an [which suggests that they were translated after Dao’an’s time]. In addition, one of the three titles, the *Akasagarbhapariprccha 虚空藏所問經 (cf. T404), is ascribed to Shengjian by Sengyou. - Fajian 法堅 and Shengjian cannot be the same person, since they are too far apart in time. - The fourteen titles that Fei lists as Shengjian’s translation include works of more than one person. For example, the Luomojie jing 羅摩伽經 T294 translated under the Qifu Qin, the Taizi Xudamo jing 太子須大拏經 T171 and Shanzi jing 睒子經 T171 of the W. Jin differ greatly in both vocabulary and style. Hence, Fei’s list of Shengjian’s translations does not consist of the works of only one person. (310-314) As for the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nu ben jing, Hayashiya claims that they should be re-ascribed to Fajian, although their dates are difficult to determine, since the texts are lost and not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. This is because, 1) the Zhi Mindu catalogue, as reported by the two intermediate sources, is reliable; and; 2) Fei’s ascription is incorrect, and based upon his confusion of Fajiang with Shengjian. (314-315) Dou lu and Bie lu Although the Zhi Mindu catalogue went missing before the time of Daoxuan’s DTNDL, he is honest in recording information, and might have had some sources stating that there were two Zhi Mindu catalogues. Hayashiya supposes that the Dou lu 都錄 was a general catalogue and the Bie lu 別錄a catalogue of scriptures with ascriptions, sorted by translator, as the names suggests. (305-307). Hayashiya presents three possibilities regarding the Dou lu and Bie lu: 1) Zhi Mindu might have recorded scriptures as he found them, over time, and details might have been added to the manuscript later. With this method, the division into Dou lu and Bie lu would not be needed; 2) While working as described in 1, Zhi Mindu might also have compiled a separate section consisting only of ascribed scriptures. In this case, the comprehensive part (1) would be called Dou lu, and the separate part for ascribed scriptures be called the Bie lu; 3) Zhi Mindu might have separated entirely the part for ascribed scriptures and that for anonymous scriptures. In such a case, the catalogue as a whole would be called Dou lu and the part of scriptures with ascriptions Bie lu. (320-321) Hayashiya favours (3). Only that option explains peculiarities in the way the Zhi Mindu catalogue is referred to or described in later catalogues: Daoxuan asserts that there was indeed a Bie lu; Fei seems unaware of or indifferent to the existence of two separate portions of the catalogue; Fei records a Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 in 1 juan. (321-322) The relation of Zhi Mindu’s catalogue to Dao’an Hayashiya ends his examination on the Zhi Mindu catalogue by discussing its possible relation to Dao’an’s catalogues. He argues that, although Zhi Mindu and Dao’an were not far apart geographically, Dao’an did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Hayashiya first finds that out of twenty or so scriptures known to have been in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, six are not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. Hayashiya claims that, even though Dao’an did not include scriptures that he did not directly see in his catalogue, the non-inclusion of six titles out of 20 or so is too significant to suppose that Dao’an actually saw the Zhi Mindu catalogue. (323-324) Subsequently, Hayashiya explains that Zhi Mindu compiled his catalogue in a region not far from Dao’an: Based on a passage in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in GSZ, Hayashiya infers that Zhi Mindu probably lived near Yuzhang shan 豫章山, south of the Lu shan 廬山 region, because Sengyuan settled there and Zhi Mindu accompanied him (at least to the Yangzi 揚子 river). Dao’an lived in Xiangyang 襄陽, not far away. Hayashiya claims that Dao’an probably did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue because the two scholars belonged to different lineages 學系, and Zhi Mindu had a very small number of disciples, unlike Dao’an (324-325). Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經 |
|
236-240 |
Zhi Qian catalogue 支謙錄 | |
|
LDSBJ is the first source in our record for the claim that Zhu Shixing authored a catalogue of Han texts (the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄), and all later catalogues that discuss this text clearly derive from LDSBJ. Early biographical sources for Zhu Shixing do not mention any catalogue. Hayashiya argues that we should separate for purposes of analysis two questions: 1) Did Zhu Shixing ever author a catalogue? 2) What is the nature and provenance of the supposed Zhu Shixing Han lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts? 1. Hayashiya sees no reason to disbelieve that Zhu Shixing may in fact have compiled some sort of catalogue. In fact, he argues at several points that it is more likely that some tradition circulated that Zhu Shixing did compile a catalogue, because that would have made the forgery of the later catalogue under the same name more plausible (he alludes several times to the assumption that forgers and fraudsters often work with grains of truth). Conversely, it is otherwise harder to account for the fact that a forger might have hung the forgery on Zhu Shixing’s name. In this sense, Hayashiya even suggests that the existence of a later forgery might provide incidental proof that an original catalogue by the same author and title did in fact exist. In this, Hayashiya argues against some other modern scholars (he names Sakaino and Tokiwa), who not only thought that the later catalogue was a forgery, but even thought that the original catalogue never existed (244-246; citing Sakaino, Shina Bukkyō shi kōwa 155, Tokiwa Yakkyō sōroku 73). 2. Hayashiya then considers separately the problem of the nature of the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu, as cited in LDSBJ in support of ascriptions and dates of individual texts. He argues that this catalogue is a later forgery. Hayashiya tabulates the 24 texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ (249-250). All these texts are indeed Han texts, fitting the supposed nature of the catalogue (Hayashiya points out that the LDSBJ note for one more anachronistic text, by Kang Daohe 康道和 of the E. Jin, actually says that the Zhu Shixing Han lu contains the title only with no ascription). However, at least two of the actual texts in question, the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 and the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (lost; this attribution is a mistake for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 [*Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna]; see below), are anachronistic, since content shows these texts to be of the Jin 晉 or later (Hayashiya refers to his own Iyaku kyōrui for details). On these grounds, he agrees with Tokiwa and Sakaino insofar as he also concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu as cited in LDSBJ is a later forgery. Sakaino held that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was forged by Fei Changfang himself, whereas Tokiwa thought it was an earlier forgery merely used by Fei (Hayashiya 252). At the end of a very complex argument, Hayashiya agrees with Tokiwa. Hayashiya’s theories about the forgery of the catalogue are grounded in the assumption that its author was most likely motivated by a context of clashes with Daoism and attendant persecution of Buddhism. In such contexts, Hayashiya holds, Buddhist apologists strove to prove that Buddhism as a whole, and Buddhist texts, had the greatest antiqutiy possible, and greater antiquity than that claimed for Daoist rivals (271-274). In this connection, Hayashiya considers it significant that the Zhu Shixing Han lu is used extensively by Fei to give dates to An Shigao texts, which he says were entirely undated in Dao’an (273-275). On the basis of the various texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ, Hayashiya concludes that it must date between the Jin and the Sui (264). Hayashiya thinks he finds a hint of this polemical purpose behind the forgery in the use of the text by Falin 法琳 in his Po xie lun 破邪論 as support for the legend of Shi Lifang 釋利房, and in LDSBJ’s own use of the text to support the legend of Kāśyapa Mātaṅga. Hayashiya therefore supposes that within this period, the most likely immediate context for the composition of the catalogue was probably the persecutions of Buddhism under either the N. Wei or the N. Zhou (264-266). Of these two possibilities, Hayashiya regards it as most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution (in part because we can discern no influence of the text on CSZJJ). He notes that Fei Changfang, as one of the principal victims and opponents of that persecution, would have been intimately familiar with documents produced under those circumstances (266-267). Hayashiya considers the possibility that LDSBJ’s forged Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed by inserting fraudulent later information into an extant authentic Zhu Shixing text. He suggests that this would be consistent with Fei’s pattern of use of earlier texts, such as the Jiu lu (254-255). However, Hayashiya ultimately concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was entirely a later forgery (278-279). Hayashiya thinks that Fei himself was not the forger of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but was working with material he had found elsewhere, because there are occasions on which it might be useful for Fei to ascribe some information to the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but he does not do so (256-257). Hayashiya also argues against Tokiwa’s conclusion that Fei knew of the Zhu Shixing Han lu via the Baochang lu 寶唱錄, on the following grounds (258-262): 1) If Baochang knew of this catalogue, he would naturally have regarded it as important, but no mention of the catalogue is made in GSZ; since Baochang’s (lost) Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 was one of the principal sources of GSZ, GSZ should mention the catalogue if MSZ did; the fact that GSZ does not mention the catalogue therefore suggests that MSZ did not mention it either, which suggests Baochang had no information about such a text. 2) The LDSBJ notices citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu do not cite the Baochang lu. Hayashiya admits that Fei Changfang often cites a catalogue without citing the proximate source via which he had knowledge of it (as e.g. in the case of Jiu lu via CSZJJ). However, he suggest that for such an important text, we should still expect to see Baochang cited alongside the Zhu Shixing Han lu at least some of the time, if Baochang was Fei’s proximate source. 3) A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭; T2154 (LV) 649a9-15. This prompted Hayashiya to investigate other texts ascribed to Zhu Falan in LDSBJ. Hayashiya shows that the other four of these five texts all appear in the GSZ biography of Tanwulan, 十地斷結佛本生法海藏佛本行四十二章等五部, T2059 (L) 323a12-14; but this fact is not acknowledged by Fei Changfang. This means that all four texts should also be instances of the same error (Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 = *Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna). For the 十地斷結經 (variously 十住斷結經), which is among these texts, Fei Changfang cites the Zhu Shixing Han lu (十地斷結經四卷(或八卷見朱士行漢錄, T2034 (XLIX) 50a5). This casts further doubt on Fei’s use of this catalogue. Occasionally, for other information in GSZ that is not repeated in CSZJJ, we might assume that the source for GSZ was MSZ. However, this cannot be the case here either, as LDSBJ only cites MSZ as a source for one of these five texts. Hayashiya thus concludes that it is most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed under the title of a lost catalogue known to the tradition, but was entirely a new fabrication, composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution, and then introduced to the bibliographic tradition by LDSBJ itself (278-279). |
241-281 |
LDSBJ is the first source in our record for the claim that Zhu Shixing authored a catalogue of Han texts (the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄), and all later catalogues that discuss this text clearly derive from LDSBJ. Early biographical sources for Zhu Shixing do not mention any catalogue. Hayashiya argues that we should separate for purposes of analysis two questions: 1) Did Zhu Shixing ever author a catalogue? 2) What is the nature and provenance of the supposed Zhu Shixing Han lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts? 1. Hayashiya sees no reason to disbelieve that Zhu Shixing may in fact have compiled some sort of catalogue. In fact, he argues at several points that it is more likely that some tradition circulated that Zhu Shixing did compile a catalogue, because that would have made the forgery of the later catalogue under the same name more plausible (he alludes several times to the assumption that forgers and fraudsters often work with grains of truth). Conversely, it is otherwise harder to account for the fact that a forger might have hung the forgery on Zhu Shixing’s name. In this sense, Hayashiya even suggests that the existence of a later forgery might provide incidental proof that an original catalogue by the same author and title did in fact exist. In this, Hayashiya argues against some other modern scholars (he names Sakaino and Tokiwa), who not only thought that the later catalogue was a forgery, but even thought that the original catalogue never existed (244-246; citing Sakaino, Shina Bukkyo shi kowa 155, Tokiwa Yakkyo soroku 73). 2. Hayashiya then considers separately the problem of the nature of the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu, as cited in LDSBJ in support of ascriptions and dates of individual texts. He argues that this catalogue is a later forgery. Hayashiya tabulates the 24 texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ (249-250). All these texts are indeed Han texts, fitting the supposed nature of the catalogue (Hayashiya points out that the LDSBJ note for one more anachronistic text, by Kang Daohe 康道和 of the E. Jin, actually says that the Zhu Shixing Han lu contains the title only with no ascription). However, at least two of the actual texts in question, the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 and the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (lost; this attribution is a mistake for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 [*Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna]; see below), are anachronistic, since content shows these texts to be of the Jin 晉 or later (Hayashiya refers to his own Iyaku kyorui for details). On these grounds, he agrees with Tokiwa and Sakaino insofar as he also concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu as cited in LDSBJ is a later forgery. Sakaino held that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was forged by Fei Changfang himself, whereas Tokiwa thought it was an earlier forgery merely used by Fei (Hayashiya 252). At the end of a very complex argument, Hayashiya agrees with Tokiwa. Hayashiya’s theories about the forgery of the catalogue are grounded in the assumption that its author was most likely motivated by a context of clashes with Daoism and attendant persecution of Buddhism. In such contexts, Hayashiya holds, Buddhist apologists strove to prove that Buddhism as a whole, and Buddhist texts, had the greatest antiqutiy possible, and greater antiquity than that claimed for Daoist rivals (271-274). In this connection, Hayashiya considers it significant that the Zhu Shixing Han lu is used extensively by Fei to give dates to An Shigao texts, which he says were entirely undated in Dao’an (273-275). On the basis of the various texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ, Hayashiya concludes that it must date between the Jin and the Sui (264). Hayashiya thinks he finds a hint of this polemical purpose behind the forgery in the use of the text by Falin 法琳 in his Po xie lun 破邪論 as support for the legend of Shi Lifang 釋利房, and in LDSBJ’s own use of the text to support the legend of Kasyapa Matanga. Hayashiya therefore supposes that within this period, the most likely immediate context for the composition of the catalogue was probably the persecutions of Buddhism under either the N. Wei or the N. Zhou (264-266). Of these two possibilities, Hayashiya regards it as most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution (in part because we can discern no influence of the text on CSZJJ). He notes that Fei Changfang, as one of the principal victims and opponents of that persecution, would have been intimately familiar with documents produced under those circumstances (266-267). Hayashiya considers the possibility that LDSBJ’s forged Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed by inserting fraudulent later information into an extant authentic Zhu Shixing text. He suggests that this would be consistent with Fei’s pattern of use of earlier texts, such as the Jiu lu (254-255). However, Hayashiya ultimately concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was entirely a later forgery (278-279). Hayashiya thinks that Fei himself was not the forger of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but was working with material he had found elsewhere, because there are occasions on which it might be useful for Fei to ascribe some information to the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but he does not do so (256-257). Hayashiya also argues against Tokiwa’s conclusion that Fei knew of the Zhu Shixing Han lu via the Baochang lu 寶唱錄, on the following grounds (258-262): 1) If Baochang knew of this catalogue, he would naturally have regarded it as important, but no mention of the catalogue is made in GSZ; since Baochang’s (lost) Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 was one of the principal sources of GSZ, GSZ should mention the catalogue if MSZ did; the fact that GSZ does not mention the catalogue therefore suggests that MSZ did not mention it either, which suggests Baochang had no information about such a text. 2) The LDSBJ notices citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu do not cite the Baochang lu. Hayashiya admits that Fei Changfang often cites a catalogue without citing the proximate source via which he had knowledge of it (as e.g. in the case of Jiu lu via CSZJJ). However, he suggest that for such an important text, we should still expect to see Baochang cited alongside the Zhu Shixing Han lu at least some of the time, if Baochang was Fei’s proximate source. 3) A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭; T2154 (LV) 649a9-15. This prompted Hayashiya to investigate other texts ascribed to Zhu Falan in LDSBJ. Hayashiya shows that the other four of these five texts all appear in the GSZ biography of Tanwulan, 十地斷結佛本生法海藏佛本行四十二章等五部, T2059 (L) 323a12-14; but this fact is not acknowledged by Fei Changfang. This means that all four texts should also be instances of the same error (Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 = *Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna). For the 十地斷結經 (variously 十住斷結經), which is among these texts, Fei Changfang cites the Zhu Shixing Han lu (十地斷結經四卷(或八卷見朱士行漢錄, T2034 (XLIX) 50a5). This casts further doubt on Fei’s use of this catalogue. Occasionally, for other information in GSZ that is not repeated in CSZJJ, we might assume that the source for GSZ was MSZ. However, this cannot be the case here either, as LDSBJ only cites MSZ as a source for one of these five texts. Hayashiya thus concludes that it is most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed under the title of a lost catalogue known to the tradition, but was entirely a new fabrication, composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution, and then introduced to the bibliographic tradition by LDSBJ itself (278-279). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hīnayāna translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taishō (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SĀ 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SĀ 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. |
1323-1332 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this text with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 (and with alternate titles He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 and Ju mo pi jing 聚沫譬經) as an offshoot text of the Samyuktagama 雜阿含經. Hayashiya claims that this text is an alternate translation of a text in SA 雜阿含 (T99), because it is older than the SA 雜阿含 translated by Gunabhadra. Hence, the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 should have been recorded as such, and not as an offshoot text. Nonetheless, Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in listing this text as an offshoot text. Jingtai did not record the length of the text for this reason. Thus, it is unclear if the text was extant at Jingtai’s time or not. Still, all the catalogues down to Jingtai regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 as an anonymous scripture. LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: LDSBJ regarded this text, with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋 period without, but does not give any supporting evidence. DZKZM followed LDSBJ in this regard. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists three different texts related to the He zhong da ju mo jing, which are: the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高; the Shui mo suo piao jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the He zhong da hu mo jing as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Zhisheng regards the first two titles as extant, and the last one, the [second] He zhong da ju mo jing, as lost. Thus, KYL listed three texts with those titles, while all the other previous major catalogues showed only one. Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hinayana translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taisho (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SA 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SA 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations is what is now shown mistakenly as the Wu yin piyu jing T105. This should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. An Shigao, 安世高 五陰喩經; 五陰譬喩經 |
|
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Hayashiya claims that the phrase 更出阿闍世王經, which Sengyou seems to take as the title of a text, just refers to the 普超經, where 更出 means that it is a second or subsquent translation of a text already translated earlier in the tradition. Hayashiya's basis for this is KYL, where Zhisheng is in turn arguing on the basis of notes found elsewhere in CSZJJ. In this case, the note in question is this: 普超經四卷(一名阿闍世王品安錄亦云更出阿闍世王經或為三卷舊錄云文殊普超三昧經太康七年十二月二十七日出), T2145:55.7b25-26. |
408 n. 13, 15 |
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmaraksa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Hayashiya claims that the phrase 更出阿闍世王經, which Sengyou seems to take as the title of a text, just refers to the 普超經, where 更出 means that it is a second or subsquent translation of a text already translated earlier in the tradition. Hayashiya's basis for this is KYL, where Zhisheng is in turn arguing on the basis of notes found elsewhere in CSZJJ. In this case, the note in question is this: 普超經四卷(一名阿闍世王品安錄亦云更出阿闍世王經或為三卷舊錄云文殊普超三昧經太康七年十二月二十七日出), T2145:55.7b25-26. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 普超經; 更出阿闍世王經 |
|
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Sengyou mistakenly takes the phrase geng chu 更出 to refer to an alternate translation of the Prajñāpāramitā. However, according to Hayashiya, as KYL 開元録 points out, this in fact refers to the Xiuxing daodi jing 修行道地經 T606. The basis for this is the analogy with the situation with two other texts/titles listed in CSZJJ, which have titles including 更出; in those cases, also, Zhisheng suggests that Sengyou took an alternate title to indicate the existence of a separate text. Rather, 更出 here means that this was a second translation of the root text, after an earlier translation in the tradition; not that Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 himself translated the same text twice. Thus, it seems most likely that this "title" 更出小品 refers to T606 itself, and when Sengyou takes 更出小品 to refer to a separate text, then, he creates a ghost text. |
407-408 n. 13 |
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmaraksa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Sengyou mistakenly takes the phrase geng chu 更出 to refer to an alternate translation of the Prajnaparamita. However, according to Hayashiya, as KYL 開元録 points out, this in fact refers to the Xiuxing daodi jing 修行道地經 T606. The basis for this is the analogy with the situation with two other texts/titles listed in CSZJJ, which have titles including 更出; in those cases, also, Zhisheng suggests that Sengyou took an alternate title to indicate the existence of a separate text. Rather, 更出 here means that this was a second translation of the root text, after an earlier translation in the tradition; not that Dharmaraksa 竺法護 himself translated the same text twice. Thus, it seems most likely that this "title" 更出小品 refers to T606 itself, and when Sengyou takes 更出小品 to refer to a separate text, then, he creates a ghost text. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 更出小品 |
|
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Hayashiya claims that this so-called 更出首楞嚴 is probably identical with Dharmarakṣa's lost 首楞嚴經, since the phrase 更出首楞嚴 appears in the description of 首楞嚴經, and this phrase might later have been misunderstood as a separate title. Hayashiya bases himself in part on analogous mixups with other alternate titles of Dharmarakṣa texts elsewhere in CSZJJ (see n. 13). Still, he also says that his view is not completely decisive. |
408 n. 14 |
Hayashiya is examining a list of titles ascribed to Dharmaraksa (see p. 395) in Dao’an’s catalogue, as preserved in CSZJJ. Hayashiya claims that this so-called 更出首楞嚴 is probably identical with Dharmaraksa's lost 首楞嚴經, since the phrase 更出首楞嚴 appears in the description of 首楞嚴經, and this phrase might later have been misunderstood as a separate title. Hayashiya bases himself in part on analogous mixups with other alternate titles of Dharmaraksa texts elsewhere in CSZJJ (see n. 13). Still, he also says that his view is not completely decisive. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 更出首楞嚴 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄: KYL 開元錄: Taishō: However, Hayashiya claims that T579 is different from the Jing xing jing 浄行經 in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. This is because the vocabulary T579 uses is rather new, influenced quite heavily by Kumārajīva, and the tone is also new. T579 therefre rcannot be the text shown in the recompilation of (Dao'an's) catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country. Hayashiya infers that, since both texts were of two scrolls, probably the same or a very similar 同一類 text was translated again in or after Kumārajīva’s time, after the first Jing xing jing was lost. Thus, the Jing xing jing and the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 (or the Youpoyi jing xing jing 優婆夷浄行經) are actually different texts. Hayashiya concludes that the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 should be listed separately from the Jing xing jing, as an anonymous scripture of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period. The Jing xing jing, on the other hand, 浄行經 should be kept as a non-extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
997-1001 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Jing xing jing 浄行經 is listed in this catalogue as two scrolls 巻 in volume, and was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Youpoyi jing xing jing 優婆夷浄行經 as an anonymous Mahayana text with the alternate title Jing xing jing 浄行經, also two scrolls in volume. The Youpoyi jing xing jing in Fajing and the Jing xing jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 are the same size, two-scrolls, and the alternate name of the former is Jing xing jing. This being the case, the Youpoyi jing xing jing and the Jing xing jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country might be thought to be identical, but Hayashiya rejects this possibility for reasons outlined below. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong listed the same title, Youpoyi jing xing jing, two juan in length. However, Yancong classified it as an independent Hinayana text. Thus, there is an issue whether this Youpoyi jing xing jing was a Hinayana text or a Mahayana one. Jingtai 靜泰錄 and DTNDL 内典錄: Jingtai says that the Youpoyi jing xing jing is thirty sheets 紙 long. DTNDL also lists the text as having the same length, while classifying it as a Hinayana text. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists a Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 as thirty-two sheets long. It is classified as an independent Mahayana text. Hayashiya thinks that Jingtai, DTNDL and KYL refer to the same text, because those catalogues show the same length of the text. He also claims that the text is a Mahayana text and Yancong and some other catalogues are mistaken in classifying it as a Hinayana text. Taisho: There is a Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 extant in the Taisho (T579), which is thirty three and a half registers 段 long. Hayashiya claims that since the text contains quite a few verses, the actual length could be roughly thirty sheets long. For this reason, he judges that this text in the Taisho is the same one listed in catalogues since Fajing. However, Hayashiya claims that T579 is different from the Jing xing jing 浄行經 in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録. This is because the vocabulary T579 uses is rather new, influenced quite heavily by Kumarajiva, and the tone is also new. T579 therefre rcannot be the text shown in the recompilation of (Dao'an's) catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country. Hayashiya infers that, since both texts were of two scrolls, probably the same or a very similar 同一類 text was translated again in or after Kumarajiva’s time, after the first Jing xing jing was lost. Thus, the Jing xing jing and the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 (or the Youpoyi jing xing jing 優婆夷浄行經) are actually different texts. Hayashiya concludes that the Youpoyi jing xing famen jing 優婆夷浄行法門經 should be listed separately from the Jing xing jing, as an anonymous scripture of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period. The Jing xing jing, on the other hand, 浄行經 should be kept as a non-extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 浄行經 |
|
A Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's text of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya argues that the text once existed (unlike a number of other texts with similar titles), but points out that this text was already lost in Sengyou’s time. The argument is as follows. The Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fujiasha wang jing as an alternate title for the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing. The text was classified as an alternate translation from the Madhyāgama 中阿含 T26. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in this regard. DTNDL 内典錄 records the text in the same manner with title as either Pingsha wang wu yuan jing or Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, while showing the length of the text as seven sheets 紙. Hayashiya maintains that the text of the Fujiasha wang jing/Pingsha wang wu yuan jing was extant from Sengyo’s time down to the time of DTNDL, and there do not appear to be any other alternate versions. Apart from those catalogues, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists a Fujiasha wang jing or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Zhi Qian’s translation, a Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 translation, and yet another Pingsha wang wu yuan jingas Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translation. Hayashiya then clarifies where those two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing came from. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, a Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 (var. Pingsha wang jing 蓱沙王經, 三本=SYM) is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録, and a Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 (Liusha wang jing 流沙王經, 三本=SYM) in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. LDSBJ 三寶記 uses the character ping 蓱 for Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translations, distinguishing them from the alternate title of Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, viz., *Ping*sha wang wu yuan jing “萍”沙王五願經. Hayashiya argues that the texts that LDSBJ regards as by Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong 釋嵩公 are likely to be the same ones listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue fo alternate scriptures from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録 and the assorted catalogue of anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, since the titles of those in the "Liang" catalogue also avoid the character ping 萍, which is used in the alternate title of the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, i.e., 萍沙王五願經. The characters ping 萍, ping 洴 and ping 蓱 are all used to express the sound bim- in the name of Bimbisāra, so any difference between those characters does not imply a difference in the original texts. Hayashiya points out further that, judging from the content of T511, the text could equally be called 萍沙王經, 萍沙王五願經 or 弗迦沙王經. As such, we can reasonably expect that the content of the Fujiasha wang jing in Dao’an’s list, that of the Pingsha wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue, and that of the Pingsha wang jing the "assorted anonymous" catalogue were actually the same. Especially, both the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 were lost at the time of Sengyou, and he listed them as different texts without seeing the texts, so it is highly likely that the two were indeed the same text. On the other hand, the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 must be different, since they are listed as different by Dao’an, who always checks the text directly. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as an anonymous scripture, separately from the Fujiasha wang jing (or the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經). This indicates that Fajing also thought that the Fujiasha wang jing and the Pinsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 were different. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai recorded the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as a lost text, so the text has been lost since the Sui 隋 period. Returning to LDSBJ, the text it classifies as Zhi Qian’s translation, under the title Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, must be the Fujiasha wang jing of Dao’an’s list, because Fei Changfang 費長房 specifies it as such, and because the title Fujiasha wang jing had been consistently used to refer to the text in Dao’an’s list in previous catalogues. As for the other two tiles in LDSBJ, one of the two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing---one of which is ascribed to Tanwulan, the other to Shi Songgong---must have been intended to be the one in Sengyou’s "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, and hence it should be omitted. However, it is not clear which of these two texts in LDSBJ was intended to be the one in Sengyou's 失譯雜經錄. In any case, LDSBJ’s ascription to the two translators is clearly unreliable, when probably there was only one text extant. Moreover, Fei does not provide any support for that ascription. In his comment on the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 stating that it is Shi Songgong's translation, Fei writes as if he is relying upon the Zhao catalogue 趙錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, but neither of those catalogues states that text is Shi Songgong's translation (Hayashiya here refers to Part Four of his own Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for further examinations of LDSBJ’s groundless references to the Zhao 趙錄 and Shixing catalogues 始興錄). Thus, Hayashiya argues, LDSBJ’s claims that there are two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing translated by Tanwulan and Shi Songgong should be ignored. Next, out of the Pingsha wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録 and the Pingsha wang jing in his "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, the text in the Liang catalogue has a reliable record, and should be kept as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. As for the Fojiasha wang jing, since LDSBJ suddenly claims that the text was Zhi Qian’s translation while all the previous catalogues recorded it as anonymous, so it is also clear that LDSBJ is unreliable and should be ignored. However, LDSBJ influenced DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also lists the Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 as Zhi Qian’s translation, and the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 as Shi Songgong's translation, although it omitted the text supposedly translated by Tanwulan. It is not at all clear which text DZKZM claims was translated by Zhi Qian and which by Shi Songgong. Moreover, DZKZM listed the Fojiasha wang jing or Pingsha 萍沙 wang wu yuan jing as a lost text, while regarding the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing as extant. While DZKZM lists just two of the three titles shown in LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists all of them. Furthermore, KYL adds the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing as a separate anonymous scripture of the Liang 梁 period, whereas it was previously listed in Dao'an's "Liang" [NB: 凉!] catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya points out that probably Zhisheng 智昇 did not notice that the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing ascribed to Tanwulan or Shi Songgong was precisely the text that had been classified as the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. The Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 followed KYL by listing the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing separately from the three titles previously shown by LDSBJ. Since only one of the two Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing must have been the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録, and when a Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing is listed separately, the two entries on the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing should be deleted. The Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing itself should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Former Liang 前凉 period. On the other hand, the text that LDSBJ wrongly ascribed to Zhi Qian was continuously extant, without any alternate versions noted, despite the varying attributions given to it by different catalogues. That text is the Pingshan wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 T511. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya also mentions that the title Fojiasha wang jing refers to this same T511, since there is no separate text recorded in any catalogue after CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya concludes that, although there are a number of entries listed separately in the catalogues with the title of Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 or something similar, most such entries are mistaken. The only ones of these texts that actually existed were T511, a.k.a. Fojiasha wang jing, and the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing. The former has survived, while the latter has been lost since the time of Sengyou. Both texts should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. |
875-883 |
A Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's text of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya argues that the text once existed (unlike a number of other texts with similar titles), but points out that this text was already lost in Sengyou’s time. The argument is as follows. The Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fujiasha wang jing as an alternate title for the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing. The text was classified as an alternate translation from the Madhyagama 中阿含 T26. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in this regard. DTNDL 内典錄 records the text in the same manner with title as either Pingsha wang wu yuan jing or Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, while showing the length of the text as seven sheets 紙. Hayashiya maintains that the text of the Fujiasha wang jing/Pingsha wang wu yuan jing was extant from Sengyo’s time down to the time of DTNDL, and there do not appear to be any other alternate versions. Apart from those catalogues, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists a Fujiasha wang jing or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Zhi Qian’s translation, a Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 translation, and yet another Pingsha wang wu yuan jingas Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translation. Hayashiya then clarifies where those two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing came from. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, a Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 (var. Pingsha wang jing 蓱沙王經, 三本=SYM) is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録, and a Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 (Liusha wang jing 流沙王經, 三本=SYM) in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. LDSBJ 三寶記 uses the character ping 蓱 for Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translations, distinguishing them from the alternate title of Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, viz., *Ping*sha wang wu yuan jing “萍”沙王五願經. Hayashiya argues that the texts that LDSBJ regards as by Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong 釋嵩公 are likely to be the same ones listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue fo alternate scriptures from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録 and the assorted catalogue of anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, since the titles of those in the "Liang" catalogue also avoid the character ping 萍, which is used in the alternate title of the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, i.e., 萍沙王五願經. The characters ping 萍, ping 洴 and ping 蓱 are all used to express the sound bim- in the name of Bimbisara, so any difference between those characters does not imply a difference in the original texts. Hayashiya points out further that, judging from the content of T511, the text could equally be called 萍沙王經, 萍沙王五願經 or 弗迦沙王經. As such, we can reasonably expect that the content of the Fujiasha wang jing in Dao’an’s list, that of the Pingsha wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue, and that of the Pingsha wang jing the "assorted anonymous" catalogue were actually the same. Especially, both the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 were lost at the time of Sengyou, and he listed them as different texts without seeing the texts, so it is highly likely that the two were indeed the same text. On the other hand, the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 must be different, since they are listed as different by Dao’an, who always checks the text directly. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as an anonymous scripture, separately from the Fujiasha wang jing (or the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經). This indicates that Fajing also thought that the Fujiasha wang jing and the Pinsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 were different. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai recorded the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as a lost text, so the text has been lost since the Sui 隋 period. Returning to LDSBJ, the text it classifies as Zhi Qian’s translation, under the title Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, must be the Fujiasha wang jing of Dao’an’s list, because Fei Changfang 費長房 specifies it as such, and because the title Fujiasha wang jing had been consistently used to refer to the text in Dao’an’s list in previous catalogues. As for the other two tiles in LDSBJ, one of the two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing---one of which is ascribed to Tanwulan, the other to Shi Songgong---must have been intended to be the one in Sengyou’s "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, and hence it should be omitted. However, it is not clear which of these two texts in LDSBJ was intended to be the one in Sengyou's 失譯雜經錄. In any case, LDSBJ’s ascription to the two translators is clearly unreliable, when probably there was only one text extant. Moreover, Fei does not provide any support for that ascription. In his comment on the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 stating that it is Shi Songgong's translation, Fei writes as if he is relying upon the Zhao catalogue 趙錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, but neither of those catalogues states that text is Shi Songgong's translation (Hayashiya here refers to Part Four of his own Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for further examinations of LDSBJ’s groundless references to the Zhao 趙錄 and Shixing catalogues 始興錄). Thus, Hayashiya argues, LDSBJ’s claims that there are two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing translated by Tanwulan and Shi Songgong should be ignored. Next, out of the Pingsha wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録 and the Pingsha wang jing in his "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, the text in the Liang catalogue has a reliable record, and should be kept as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. As for the Fojiasha wang jing, since LDSBJ suddenly claims that the text was Zhi Qian’s translation while all the previous catalogues recorded it as anonymous, so it is also clear that LDSBJ is unreliable and should be ignored. However, LDSBJ influenced DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also lists the Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 as Zhi Qian’s translation, and the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 as Shi Songgong's translation, although it omitted the text supposedly translated by Tanwulan. It is not at all clear which text DZKZM claims was translated by Zhi Qian and which by Shi Songgong. Moreover, DZKZM listed the Fojiasha wang jing or Pingsha 萍沙 wang wu yuan jing as a lost text, while regarding the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing as extant. While DZKZM lists just two of the three titles shown in LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists all of them. Furthermore, KYL adds the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing as a separate anonymous scripture of the Liang 梁 period, whereas it was previously listed in Dao'an's "Liang" [NB: 凉!] catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya points out that probably Zhisheng 智昇 did not notice that the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing ascribed to Tanwulan or Shi Songgong was precisely the text that had been classified as the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. The Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 followed KYL by listing the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing separately from the three titles previously shown by LDSBJ. Since only one of the two Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing must have been the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録, and when a Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing is listed separately, the two entries on the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing should be deleted. The Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing itself should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Former Liang 前凉 period. On the other hand, the text that LDSBJ wrongly ascribed to Zhi Qian was continuously extant, without any alternate versions noted, despite the varying attributions given to it by different catalogues. That text is the Pingshan wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 T511. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya also mentions that the title Fojiasha wang jing refers to this same T511, since there is no separate text recorded in any catalogue after CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya concludes that, although there are a number of entries listed separately in the catalogues with the title of Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 or something similar, most such entries are mistaken. The only ones of these texts that actually existed were T511, a.k.a. Fojiasha wang jing, and the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing. The former has survived, while the latter has been lost since the time of Sengyou. Both texts should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 瓶沙王經 |
|
Under the heading of Landa wang jing 藍達王經, Hayashiya deals with three titles in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. They are: the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄; the Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心政行經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄; and the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, classified as an unseen text. The first were extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya claims that the Mulian yinyuan jing is highly likely to be the same text as the Landa wang jing, because Sengyou did not see the text of the Mulian yinyuan jing, and the title is very similar to one of the alternate titles of the Landa wang jing, namely, the Mulian yinyuan gongde jing 目連因緣功徳經. Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues after CSZJJ on those and related titles, and his conclusions about questions of ascription regarding each, are as follows: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: The Landa wang jing 藍達王經 has not survived to the present, but it is quoted in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 [JLYX]. Hayashiya points out that there is no part in the extant T152 corresponding to the Landa wang jing as cited in JLYX. Even the name Landa wang 藍達王 appears nowhere in T152. Furthermore, the Landa wang section part in JLYX does not contain any part related to the title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Thus, Hayashiya judges that Fajing’s is mistaken to hold that the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing are the same text, and an excerpt 抄 from T152. Hayashiya conjectures that probably some person in the editorial team of Fajing had seen the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and thought it could also be called the Landa wang jing because the protagonist of the former is Mulian, and the latter has the alternate title Mulian yinyuan gongde jing. Fajing did not list the Mulian yinyuan jing. This omission is reasonable, since it is probably the same text as the Landa wang jing, but that raises a different problem: it then appears as if Fajing has only one text in this group, viz. a single Landa wang jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing, whereas CSZJJ has two separate texts, viz. the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Hayashiya claims that the title in Fajing that corresponds to the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the CSZJJ is the Zhong xin jing 中心經, which Fajing lists as an anonymous scripture, because the title Zhong xin jing is not found in CSZJJ. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: Hayashiya examines the surviving text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, viz., the Zhong xin jing 忠心經 T743, which is given as Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, and the the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 portion of the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 [as transmitted in JLYX? -- MR]. The vocabulary of T743 is quite archaic, probably of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and cannot be newer than the beginning of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. For example, "five skandahs" is translated 五賊, and the five individual skandhas are translated 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死 and 識. Also, the twelve nidānas are translated 癡, 行, 識, 名色, 六入, 栽, 痛, 愛, 受, 有, 生 and 死. Hence, the Zhong xin zheng xing jing cannot be Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, since he was active around the E. Jin 東晋 period. On the other hand, it is more difficult to determine the attribution of the Landa wang jing 藍達王經, since the text in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 might be just an excerpt from the real Landa wang jing 藍達王經. Nonetheless, judging from the text shown in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經, the vocabulary and tone are clearly different from Zhi Qian’s, and hence the text is not his composition. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: KYL records the length of the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing as five sheets, the same length as the Zhong xin jing shown in Jingtai. This length is slightly more than four registers in the Taishō. T743 is about four and a half registers long. However, Hayashiya maintains that T743 has more spaces than usual between some lines and characters, so the text could be written in roughly four registers. Thus, it is certain that T743 is the Zhong xin jing in Jingtai, and the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the KYL. This means also that the text is the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of CSZJJ. Hayashiya concludes that the Landa wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. As stated above, we can see part of this text today as quoted in JLYX. The Zhong xing jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心經/忠心正行經/忠心政行經 T743 must be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. All the other mistaken entries related to these two texts, which are shown above, need be excised. |
1124-1133 |
Under the heading of Landa wang jing 藍達王經, Hayashiya deals with three titles in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. They are: the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄; the Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心政行經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄; and the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, classified as an unseen text. The first were extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya claims that the Mulian yinyuan jing is highly likely to be the same text as the Landa wang jing, because Sengyou did not see the text of the Mulian yinyuan jing, and the title is very similar to one of the alternate titles of the Landa wang jing, namely, the Mulian yinyuan gongde jing 目連因緣功徳經. Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues after CSZJJ on those and related titles, and his conclusions about questions of ascription regarding each, are as follows: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Zhong xing zheng xing jing 忠心正行經, with the alternate title Landa wang jing, as an excerpt 抄 from the Liu du ji jing 六度集 (T152), so that Landa wang jing 藍達王經 appears to be a text also called Zhong xing zheng xing jing, and an offshoot text from T152. The Landa wang jing 藍達王經 has not survived to the present, but it is quoted in the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 [JLYX]. Hayashiya points out that there is no part in the extant T152 corresponding to the Landa wang jing as cited in JLYX. Even the name Landa wang 藍達王 appears nowhere in T152. Furthermore, the Landa wang section part in JLYX does not contain any part related to the title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Thus, Hayashiya judges that Fajing’s is mistaken to hold that the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing are the same text, and an excerpt 抄 from T152. Hayashiya conjectures that probably some person in the editorial team of Fajing had seen the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and thought it could also be called the Landa wang jing because the protagonist of the former is Mulian, and the latter has the alternate title Mulian yinyuan gongde jing. Fajing did not list the Mulian yinyuan jing. This omission is reasonable, since it is probably the same text as the Landa wang jing, but that raises a different problem: it then appears as if Fajing has only one text in this group, viz. a single Landa wang jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing, whereas CSZJJ has two separate texts, viz. the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Hayashiya claims that the title in Fajing that corresponds to the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the CSZJJ is the Zhong xin jing 中心經, which Fajing lists as an anonymous scripture, because the title Zhong xin jing is not found in CSZJJ. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and listed the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as a Hinayana offshoot text, giving Landa wang jing as an alternate title, and listed the Zhong xin jing 中心經 as a sole-witness Hinayana text. Jingtai notes that the length of the Zhong xin jing is five sheets 紙. Down to the time of Jingtai, the Zhong xin jing was extant, while it is not clear whether the Zhong xin zheng xing jing was extant or lost, since it was mistakenly regarded as an offshoot text. Both were considered anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記: LDSBJ lists the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as different texts, and did not list the Zhong xin jing. Hayashiya claims that LDSBJ is right in separating the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, apparently in reliance upon Dao’an, although LDSBJ still considers the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from T152. LDSBJ classifies the Landa wang jing as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya rejects those attributions as groundless. He also shows textual evidence for his rejection as follows: Hayashiya examines the surviving text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, viz., the Zhong xin jing 忠心經 T743, which is given as Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, and the the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 portion of the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 [as transmitted in JLYX? -- MR]. The vocabulary of T743 is quite archaic, probably of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and cannot be newer than the beginning of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. For example, "five skandahs" is translated 五賊, and the five individual skandhas are translated 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死 and 識. Also, the twelve nidanas are translated 癡, 行, 識, 名色, 六入, 栽, 痛, 愛, 受, 有, 生 and 死. Hence, the Zhong xin zheng xing jing cannot be Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, since he was active around the E. Jin 東晋 period. On the other hand, it is more difficult to determine the attribution of the Landa wang jing 藍達王經, since the text in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 might be just an excerpt from the real Landa wang jing 藍達王經. Nonetheless, judging from the text shown in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經, the vocabulary and tone are clearly different from Zhi Qian’s, and hence the text is not his composition. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: Following LDSBJ, DZKZM listed the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 as translated by Zhi Qian, and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from the Liu du ji jing, translated by Zhu Tanwulan. Hayashiya points out that to regard the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from T152 in this case is doubly mistaken, because the text that Fajing wrongly considered to be an offshoot text of T152/the Liu du ji jing was the Landa wang jing, which in turn was erroneously considered to have an alternate title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. By contrast, what LDSBJ and DZKZM show as an offshoot text from T152/the Liu du ji jing is supposed to be the Zhong xin zheng xing jing originally listed as an independent text by Dao’an. In any case, neither of the two texts is an offshoot text of T152/the Liu du ji jing. KYL 開元錄: KYL also listed the Landa wang jing as translated by Zhi Qian, and the Zhong xin jing, with the alternate title Zhong xin zheng xing jing, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan. Zhisheng then made another mistake, which was to list the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, a title which actually refers to the Landa wang jing, as an anonymous scripture of the [Liu] Song 宋 period. Nonetheless, Zhisheng gets one thing right: he directly examined the text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, and stated that there is no correspondence between the content of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and that of T152/the Liu du ji jing. KYL records the length of the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing as five sheets, the same length as the Zhong xin jing shown in Jingtai. This length is slightly more than four registers in the Taisho. T743 is about four and a half registers long. However, Hayashiya maintains that T743 has more spaces than usual between some lines and characters, so the text could be written in roughly four registers. Thus, it is certain that T743 is the Zhong xin jing in Jingtai, and the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the KYL. This means also that the text is the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of CSZJJ. Hayashiya concludes that the Landa wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. As stated above, we can see part of this text today as quoted in JLYX. The Zhong xing jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心經/忠心正行經/忠心政行經 T743 must be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. All the other mistaken entries related to these two texts, which are shown above, need be excised. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 目連因緣功徳經; 藍達王經 |
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: LDSBJ 三寶記 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 T273 and maintains this text cannot be the one listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録, since it includes many words that came to be used after the time of Kumārajīva, and those that belong to the system of the tathāgatagarbha tradition. Hayashiya concludes that the Jingang sanmei jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country is still lost, and must be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. The surviving T273, the one Zhisheng found, is a different text composed around the Liang Chen 梁陳 period, translated by some anonymous translators. |
1077-1079 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue): A Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 is listed in this catalogue and was lost at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu: Fajing listed the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 as an anonymous scripture. The text was still lost at the time of Yancong. LDSBJ 三寶記 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: LDSBJ classifies the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period. Hayashiya claims that this date of composition is incorrect and it is probably the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. DZKZM writes that this text is an anonymous scripture of the N. Liang 北梁 period, but this Liang 梁 is clearly a misspelling of Liang 涼. KYL 開元錄: KYL also regards the Jingang sanmei jing as an anonymous scripture of the Liang 涼 period. Adding to this, it also lists the Jingang sanmei jing as a freestanding extant Mahayana text, with a length of one scroll 巻 or two scrolls. This ambiguity of the volume indicates the fact that Zhisheng 智昇 newly found that the text that had two scrolls, while the former catalogues recorded it as one scroll. Hayashiya examines the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 T273 and maintains this text cannot be the one listed in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録, since it includes many words that came to be used after the time of Kumarajiva, and those that belong to the system of the tathagatagarbha tradition. Hayashiya concludes that the Jingang sanmei jing in the recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country is still lost, and must be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. The surviving T273, the one Zhisheng found, is a different text composed around the Liang Chen 梁陳 period, translated by some anonymous translators. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 金剛三昧經 |
|
Hayashiya offers a list of the texts in the 經律論録第一 by Dao'an 道安, based on CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Among the text titles in it, Hayashiya states that probably 阿毘曇五法經 and 五法經 are the same. However, he does not omit either of them from his restored list, in order to follow CSZJJ. |
390-391, 407 n.6 |
Hayashiya offers a list of the texts in the 經律論録第一 by Dao'an 道安, based on CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Among the text titles in it, Hayashiya states that probably 阿毘曇五法經 and 五法經 are the same. However, he does not omit either of them from his restored list, in order to follow CSZJJ. An Shigao, 安世高 阿毘曇五法經; 五法經 |
|
This text was thought to be lost, but according to Hayashiya it is included in T150A 七處三觀經. |
178 |
This text was thought to be lost, but according to Hayashiya it is included in T150A 七處三觀經. He does not show any argument to support the claim, just refers to his own article for details: Hayashiya Tomojiro 林屋友次郎, “An Seiko yaku no Zo-agon to Zoichi-agon 安世高訳の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyo kenkyu 仏教研究 1, no. 2 (1937): 11-50. 雑經四十四篇 |