| Identifier | T0356 [T] |
| Title | 佛說寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | An Shigao, 安世高 [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 4 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao argue that the Baoji sanmei Wenshushili pusa wen fasheng jing 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T356 was not translated during the Eastern Han period, on the basis of a close examination of the text. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012. pp. 87–100. Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Ti An Shigao yi Foshuo baoji sanmei wenshushili pusa wen fasheng jing kaobian” 題安世高譯《佛說寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經》考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 10, edited by Sichuan daxue Hanyu shi yanjiusuo 四川大學漢語史研究所 etc., 543–563. Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2007; Fang Yixin 方一新. “Fojiao ciyu de shijian niandai yu keyi Fojing de jianbie” 佛教詞語的始見年代與可疑佛經的鑒別. Hefei shifan xueyuan xuebao 合肥師範學院學報 4 (2016): 8–10. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Karashima 2015] Karashima, Seishi. "Who Composed the Mahāyāna Scriptures? The Mahāsāṃghikas and Vaitulya Scriptures." ARIRIAB XVIII (2015): 113-162. — 119 |
Karashima writes, "Though further investigation is needed to determine its attribution, I assume that this translation was made by Lokakṣema or his group, because the vocabulary and style in this translation agree very well with his translations, especially the usage of 謂 (“says to [somebody]”) and 用～故(“because”). Karashima further reconstructs the title 遺曰(←日)寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經 as *Vevulla-Ratnakoṭisamādhi-Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-dharmadhātu-dharmaparyāya or -sūtra. The element 遺曰 is not found in the title in the version of the sūtra presented in T, but Karashima bases his conclusion that this title was original on Sengyou's CSZJJ: 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經一卷(或云遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經), T2145 (LV) 30b20-21. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 29 and n. 60 |
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. This is shown by her usual "silent" method of excluding the text from her index; but in this case, Nattier in fact also uses this text as her example for the use of this silent method. She cites a study by Fang and Gao 2007 which established on the basis of internal evidence that the ascription to An Shigao is incorrect, and argues briefly that the same conclusion could be reached from external evidence, since the text is treated as anonymous in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and first ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Gao 1983] Gao Mingdao 高明道 [Grohmann, Friedrich F.]. “Rulai zhiyin sanmei jing fanyi yanjiu 如來智印三昧經翻譯研究.” MA thesis, Chung-kuo Wen-hua Ta-hsueh 中國文化大學, 1983. — 56 n. 24 |
|
Using the example of An Shigao, Gao observes a pattern of reascription in LDSBJ, whereby Fei Zhangfang takes batches of titles from lists of anonymous scriptures in LDSBJ, and assigns them to a single translator. In CSZJJ, such anonymous works are grouped by theme, as evidenced by the title. Gao notes that multiple titles on the themes of wealthy householders 長者 [see e.g. T2034 (XLIX) 50c12-17, 51a2-5 --- MR], renunciation 出家 [51a8-11, 51b14-20], brahmins 婆羅門 [51b10-c7], hells 地獄 [51c13-18], and samādhi 三昧 [esp. 52b10-18] are thus reassigned to An Shigao. This entry lists all extant An Shigao texts with those keywords in their titles [note: Gao does not provide a list of texts he regards as affected by this pattern, and I have not checked whether all of the texts associated with this entry were treated as anonymous in CSZJJ, or whether, alternatively, some were already assigned there to An Shigao --- MR.] Gao also cites Okabe Kazuo 岡部和雄. "Shitsuyaku zakkyōroku kenkyū no kadai." IBK 21, no. 2 (1983): 66-71. Okabe had reportedly also noticed this pattern of reassignment of thematically grouped batches of anonymous titles from CSZJJ in LDSBJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 149-154 |
|
Kamata discusses ascriptions to An Shigao, and is willing, on various grounds, to accept the ascriptions for T13, T14, T31, T32, T48, T57, T98, T112, T150A, T150B, T397(17), T602, T603, T607, and T1557. This implies that in Kamata's opinion, the ascriptions for all other texts attributed to An Shigao in T are less reliable, namely, T16, T36, T91, T92, T105, T109, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T605, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T792, T1467, T1470, T1492, and T2027. This entry lists all the texts in this latter group. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Ui 1971] Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971. — 440-441 |
In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one. - In his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, Sengyou lists the Baoji sanmei Wenshushili pusa wen fashen jing (i.e. he treats it as an anonymous scripture), with the alternate title Weiri [ > Weiyue 遺曰] baoji sanmei Wenshushili wen fashen jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經. Dao’an did not know this text. - LDSBJ records the same title, but with the ascription to An Shigao. Fei does not provide any evidence for this ascription. - KYL follows LDSBJ in ascribing the text to An Shigao. Zhisheng uses the title Baoji sanmei Wenshu wen fashen jing 寶積三昧文殊問法身經, and gives a new alternate translation, Ru fajie tixing jing 入法界體性經 ascribed to *Jñānagupta 闍那崛多. Thus, there are no grounds for the ascription to An Shigao, and it should therefore be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 33, 331 n. 82 |
|
According to Zürcher, the ascription of this text to An Shigao is not supported by the earliest external evidence. Zürcher says that Dao'an ascribes 34 texts in total to An Shigao. Setting aside T32 (see below), only 19 of the remaining 30 texts on Dao'an's list are extant: T13, T14, T31, T36, T48, T57, T98, T105, T109, T112, T150a, T150b, T397, T602, T603, T605, T607, T792, and T1557. This implies that other ascriptions to An Shigao in the modern (Taishō) canon are more open to question. This record lists all such texts: T16, T91, T92, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T1467, T1470, T1492, T2027. [NOTE: Dao'an ascribed four texts to An Shigao only with hesitation. Three are no longer extant; the only extant text among them is T32. See separate entry on T32.] [NOTE: In a later publication (Zürcher 1991) Zürcher came to the opinion that T1508 should also be ascribed to An Shigao---JN/MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 80-86 |
|
Sakaino Kōyō gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題である); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ. According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include: - “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經; Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82). Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82). For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.] In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyāna). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list: 23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha. 24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふべき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles. 17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyāna, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.] The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 52b10-11, 113a1 |
The ascription of T356 to An Shigao found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. The same title is anomalously treated as anonymous in Fascicle 13. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 121a16 |
T356 is treated as anonymous in Fajing. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 30b20-21 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T356 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經一卷(或云遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經). [Note that *weiri 遺日 here is almost certainly in error for weiyue 遺曰 --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 30b20-21. |
Sengyou records an alternate title for T356, Weiri [ > Weiyue] baoji sanmei Wenshushili wen fashen jing 遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經: 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經一卷(或云遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經). [Note that *weiri 遺日 here is almost certainly for weiyue 遺曰, a transcription of (some Prakrit form of) *vaipulya --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|