| Identifier | T0373 [T] |
| Title | 後出阿彌陀佛偈 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Saitō 2006] |
| Unspecified | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [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 |
[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 |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 31a16 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T373 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): 後[v.l. + 出 SYM]阿彌陀佛偈一卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[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. — 118 n. 20, 21 |
This text may have been "composed by an author who was familiar not just with Zhi Qian's translation of this scripture, but with his earlier fanbai as well." But "it seems unlikely that it could have been composed by Zhi Qian himself." Nattier cites as evidence the fact that T373 features vocabulary otherwise only found in Zhi Qian; but on the other hand, that the name of Amitābha Buddha is not presented in the way characteristic of Zhi Qian's translations. See also Nattier, "Names of Amitābha/Amitāyus in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations (2)” (2007a): 384-385. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 55b24-25, 113b7-8 |
In LDSBJ, two titles very similar to T373, 阿彌陀佛偈經 and 後出阿彌陀佛偈經, are listed among Han anonymous texts. Both listed again as anonymous in Fascicle 13. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2005] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. “Kōshutsu Amida Butsu ge ni tsuite後出阿彌陀佛偈について.” Jōdoshūgaku kenkyū 浄土宗学研究 32 (2005): 50-51. |
The Hou chu Amituo Fo jie 後出阿彌陀佛偈 T373 is listed in the Taishō as an anonymous translation of the E. Han. This attribution first appears in LDSBJ, i.e. it does not appear in Dao'an or CSZJJ. Saitō argues that the oldest version of the text is found in citations in the Jingtu lun 浄土論 T1963 of Jiacai 迦才 (d.u., fl. ca. 627–649). The text comprises 56 lines of five-character verse. Saitō points out that it features deliberate rhyme (an unusual feature of verse in early Chinese Buddhist translations, which Saitō has studied systematically in a series of studies). On the basis of the history of the particular rhyme groups at play, Saitō argues that the date of the text should fall sometime between the Eastern Han and the Jin. Saitō refers to his own more detailed study in 佛教大学総合研究所紀要 (2006) for further details. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 121c7 |
T373 is treated as anonymous in Fajing. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2006] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信, “Kōshutsu Amida-butsu ge to sono yōto 『後出阿弥陀仏偈』とその用途." Bukkyō daigaku sōgō kenkyūjo kiyō bessatsu "Jōdokyō tenseki no kenkyū" 仏教大学総合研究所紀要別冊「浄土教典籍の研究」 1 (2006): 11-29. |
Saitō provides a critical edition of the 後出阿彌陀佛偈 T373 (with rime groups noted at the end of even lines), consider questions of authorship and date, and studies the use and influence of the text. He lists all available versions of the text, including various editions of the canon (K, S, Y, M), a Dunhuang manuscript S. 2116, manuscripts at Ishiyama-dera, Shōsōin and Nanatsu-dera, and a full citation in the work of Jiacai 迦才 (d.u., fl. ca. 627-649). He lists commentaries on the text, mostly by very late Shinshū figures. He summarises briefly a handful of earlier secondary studies. Mochizuki Shinkō held that it is unclear whether T373 is a genuine translation or a Chinese composition, and whether it is any earlier than the Liu Song. Kajio Benkyō 梶尾弁匡 held that the wording of T373 is similar to the translation terminology of the “Lokakṣema” ( = Zhi Qian) version of the *Sukhāvatīvyūha T361.Fujita Kōtatsu held that T373 was old, but perhaps not a translation. Saitō also summarises the content of the catalogues. These do not differ greatly from one another. The text first appears in CSZJJ, i.e. it appears not to be known by Dao’an. Saitō points out in this connection that the dating to the E. Han first appears in LDSBJ, whence it was taken up by Zhisheng in KYL, and then retained through the line to the Taishō (where it still appears in the byline). Saitō argues that the extant texts stand in three main lines of transmission. As is typical of Saitō’s work, much of his analysis hinges upon the rhyme scheme. The text contains 56 lines of 5 characters each, which makes 28 padas in second position, yielding 14 possible rhyme pairs. The rhyme, he says, is imperfect against classical canons, but distinct and deliberate nonetheless. There is an alternation of –n and –ng nasal endings. Treatment of such pairings as legitimate rhyme is confined in time to the period from the Han through to the Jin; it disappears in the N. Wei and the Liu Song (it is unattested in the Three Kingdoms period as well, but Saitō argues that this is because we simply happen to have no examples, not because the rhyme was regarded as illegitimate at that time). This allows us to conjecture that the text must date between the Han and the Jin. Other texts sporting a similar rhyme pattern are the 妙好寶車經 T2869 (a Chinese composition which Saitō dates to the N. Wei, citing one of his own prior studies), and the version of the Xulai jing 須賴經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 T328 [ascribed by Hayashiya to Dharmarakṣa – MR]. The text follows the *Sukhāvatīvyūha in Zhi Qian’s version (無量清淨平等覺經 T361, traditionally ascribed to *Lokakṣema) in content, and appears to largely be based upon it; indeed, he suggests that in places, T373 cannot be understood unless read alongside T361. CSZJJ reports that Zhi Qian was in the habit of writing hymns in the Indic style 梵唄 (bhāṣā) epitomising the texts that he translated, and that indeed, Sengyou lists the *Sukhāvatīvyūha among the texts upon which he is supposed to have composed such a work. This might tempt us to speculate that we have in T373 exactly Zhi Qian’s hymn. However, T373 contains a line stating that sentient beings in the Pure Land are reborn from the womb, 有疑在胎中, T373 (XII) 364b29; whereas the two earliest Chinese versions of *Sukhāvatīvyūha, T362 and T361, say that they are born by spontaneous metamorphosis 化生 (*upapāduka). Saitō argues that this precludes the possibility that T373 is the work of Zhi Qian himself, and means the text must at least be later than the 無量壽經 T360, traditionally ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧, but thought by most modern scholars to be either by Dharmarakṣa or Baoyun. In sum, Saitō regards T373 as a Chinese composition, dating sometime after the translation of T360, and before the fall of the Jin. In a concluding section, Saitō argues that the text was used as a liturgy (Jiacai calls it a 禮文), and that this was the main use of the 梵唄 genre. He lists a number of other exemplars of the genre in Zhi Qian and his contemporaries, and shows that such texts were used in Tang rituals. In an appendix to his paper, Saitō also provides a glossary/discussion of difficult words in the text. 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. — 185-186 |
Sakaino maintains that the extant Hou chu Amituo Fo jing 後出阿彌陀佛偈 T373 is probably Dharmarakṣa’s work, judging from the vocabulary (although he also mentions that there is a small possibility that the text was created from scratch by Dharmarakṣa or some person else). For example, Sakaino quotes the beginning part of the text: 惟念法比丘、乃從世饒王、發願喻諸佛、誓二十四章、世世見諸佛、姟數無有量、不廢宿命行、功德遂具成、世界名清淨、得佛號無量、國界平夷易、豐樂多上人 [CBETA, with a few differences from Sakaino --- AI], and claims that this passage contains terms specific to Dharmarakṣa. For example, 世界名清淨、得佛號無量 contains 無量清淨 (separated as 無量 and 清淨 metri causa), and this 無量清淨 is also used in the 平等覺經 [無量清淨平等覺經 T361] (T361 is ascribed to *Lokakṣema but Sakaino thinks it should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|