| Identifier | T0182 [T] |
| Title | 鹿母經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Revised | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Saitō 2001] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [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 |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 53 |
Of the 76 texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Sengyou in CSZJJ, five are listed as missing (闕): 鹿母經 T182a/b; 大迦葉本經 T496; 龍施菩薩本起經 T558; 等目菩薩所問[三昧]經 (cf T288); 舍頭諫太子二十八宿經 T1301. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kawano 2006] Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. Shoki kan'yaku butten no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo o chūshin to shite 初期漢訳仏典の研究 : 竺法護を中心として. Ise: Kōgakkan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2006. — 73-92, esp. Table 2, 75-77 |
|
Kawano notes that in the list of works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 7b12-9c11, a considerable number of works (Kawano counts 31 [I count 38 --- MR] are given precise dates only in the versions of the text in the Song-Yuan-Ming line, that is to say, the same dates are missing in the Korean version of CSZJJ. This note lists all those texts. The Song version of the CSZJJ notes on these texts, as reconstructed according to the Taishō apparatus, reads as follows (the date in parentheses preceding each text is Kawano's calculation of the Gregorian equivalent for the reign date given in the note): (267) 比丘尼誡經一卷（太始三年九月十日出） Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Suzuki 1995] Suzuki Hiromi 鈴木裕美. “Koyaku kyōten ni okeru yakugo ni tsuite: Jiku Hōgo yakushutsu kyōten wo chūshin toshite 古訳経典における訳語について―竺法護訳出経典を中心として.” IBK 43, no. 2 (1995): 198-200. |
|
Suzuki regards the texts listed in this entry as genuine Dharmarakṣa translations. She groups them into five types, on the basis of stylistic features: A: T222, T588 , T636 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2003] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. “Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo yaku Ryūse bosatsu hongi kyō no shiritsu ni tsuite 漢語仏典に おける偈の研究−竺法護訳『龍施菩薩本起経』の詩律をめぐって [A Study of gāthās in the Chinese Buddhist Canon: On the meter in the Longshi nü pusa benqi jing translated by Dharmarakṣa].” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 52, no. 1 (2003): 215-219. — 218 |
In the course of a more complex argument about T558, Saitō suggests that at either the entirety of the 鹿母經 T182(a/b), currently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, or at least the verse portions thereof, is in fact by Zhi Qian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2001] Saitō Takanobu [Qiteng Longxin] 斉藤隆信. “Zhi Qian suoyi jingdian zhong jiesong de yanjiu: sibu jingdian zhong de Hanyizhe 支謙所译经典中偈颂的研究―四部经典中的汉译者.” Zhongguo Foxueyuan xuebao “Fayuan” 中国佛学院学报《法源》 19 (2001): 63-73. — 70-73 |
As part of a larger series of studies of rhyming verse in Chinese Buddhist texts (especially but not exclusively translation texts), Saitō argues that because it contains such verse, which is unusual, the Lu mu jing 鹿母經 182a/b is in fact by Zhi Qian. In his own earlier studies, Saitō had found that only four texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa contained rhyming verse (T154, T182a/b, T186, and T623 --- note that Saitō confusingly gives the title of T623, 如來獨證自*誓*三昧經, incorrectly as 如來獨證自*制*三昧經, and of the alternate translation ascribed to An Shigao, 自*誓*三昧經 T622, as 自*制*三昧經). In each case, he holds that there is reason to believe that at least the verse portions may in fact derive from earlier Zhi Qian translations. He therefore argues that such verse is not characteristic of Dharmarakṣa, and its presence allows us to determine that T182 (at least the verse portions) is in fact due to Zhi Qian. Saitō notes further that T182 appears in two versions in the Taishō, T182a (based upon the Korean edition of the canon) and T182b (based upon the Song, Ming and Yuan editions). Both are ascribed in the Taishō to Dharmarakṣa. T182a is only about half the length of T182b. Jingtai, the Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu, and other catalogues which stipulate the length of texts sighted, only ever give evidence of having seen the shorter of these two texts, T182a. CSZJJ contains a record that Zhi Qian also translated a text with a similar title, Lu zi jing 鹿子經. This text is not listed as lost by Sengyou, which Saitō interprets to mean that Sengyou saw the text. The ascription of the Lu zi jing/Lu mu jing to Zhi Qian was overturned by Zhisheng in KYL: 鹿子經一卷: 右一經。與鹿母經文同名異。據其文義合從母立名。長房錄云。鹿子經吳代優婆塞支謙譯者謬也, T2154 (LV) 664b6-9 (cf. also T2154 [LV] 604b22-23). This led to the ascription of T182a/b to Dharmarakṣa currently carried in the Taishō. Saitō states that although the Lu zi jing is supposed to be lost, it is in fact cited in full in the Jing lü yi xiang經律異相 T2121. Comparison shows that this text is virtually identical to T182a (the shorter version of the text). He therefore argues that the same text circulated under two titles. He suggests that the longer version, T182b, was a later revision of T182a. He notes that whoever made this revision in fact fixed faulty rhymes from the earlier version. (The improvement in rhyme of T182b over T182a is one of Saitō’s grounds for his conclusion that T182b is the later of the two, since he assumes that nobody would revise a text to make the rhymes worse). On these grounds, Saitō argues that T182b is Dharmarakṣa’s later revision of T182a, which was originally a text by Zhi Qian. He further supports this claim by citing a single term characteristic of Dharmarakṣa in T182b, 僧那僧涅 (which, however, also appears earlier in *Lokakṣema). [I do not understand how Saitō reconciles his theory with his claims elsewhere that production of rhyming verse is atypical of Dharmarakṣa’s team, nor how he reconciles his claims that there is no evidence for the longer version of the text down to Tang catalogues with his ascription of the revisions in T186b to Dharmarakṣa – MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 333 |
Saitō points out that the verse in T182 is most likely to have been produced by Zhi Qian, since there was a lost 鹿子経 ascribed to Zhi Qian, which KYL records as being completely identical with the 鹿母経. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Zhisheng 730] Zhisheng 智昇. Kaiyuan shijiao lu (KYL) 開元釋教錄 T2154 |
The ascription of the Lu zi jing/Lu mu jing to Zhi Qian was overturned by Zhisheng in KYL: 鹿子經一卷: 右一經。與鹿母經文同名異。據其文義合從母立名。長房錄云。鹿子經吳代優婆塞支謙譯者謬也, T2154 (LV) 664b6-9 (cf. also T2154 [LV] 604b22-23). This led to the ascription of T182a/b to Dharmarakṣa, as currently carried in the Taishō. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Satō 1957] Satō Shingaku 佐藤心岳. "Jiku Hōgo Rokumo kyō ni tsuite 竺法護訳『鹿母経』について.“ IBK 22, no. 2 (1975): 660-665. |
In the course of his discussion of T182, Satō notes that it contains considerable traces of what he characterises as Chinese thought. Conspicuous examples are the inclusion of concepts such as 不忠, 不孝, 不信, 不仁. Satō regards these traits in the text as evidence of adaptation of the content to Chinese preferences, which he thinks may be especially characteristic of early translations. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Satō 1974] Satō Shingaku 佐藤心岳. "Jiku Hōgo yaku Roku mo kyō ni tsuite" 竺法護訳『鹿母経』について. IBK 22, no. 2 (1974): 660–65. — 661 |
CSZJJ records that T182 was translated in 291 CE, but does not name the place of translation. Satō argues that T182 might have been translated in 長安 Chang'an, because according to other evidence, Dharmarakṣa was active in Chang'an in that same year. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Qiu 2019] Qiu Yunqing 裘雲青. “Lumu jing zhenwei kao“ 《鹿母經》真僞考. Hanyu shi xuebao 21 (2019): 67-90. |
There are two Chinese translations of the Lumu jing 鹿母經 in the Taishō, T182a and T182b. T182b is longer, and T182a is shorter; both are ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Qiu Yunqing compares the two translations and an abridged excerpt from the Luzi jing 鹿子經 in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 (JLYX) and CSZJJ. Qiu argues that T182b is the original translation of Dharmarakṣa, and the shorter T182a is a simplified and later version of T182b, which was inaccurately ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Firstly, Qiu affirms on the basis of internal evidence that the ascription of the Lumu jing T182b to Dharmarakṣa is correct. His evidence is certain words in T182b, which appear only in Dharmarakṣa: xinran 忻然 and qishou sang mian 稽首顙面 (which is in fact a hapax, but Qiu relates it to 稽顙, which appears almost exclusively in Dhr texts in the Buddhist canon); as well as words frequently seen in Dharmarakṣa’s translations: baoyue 報曰, yimao 衣毛, guimei 鬼魅, laijiu 來久, fengshun 奉順, daoyu 導御, chian 癡闇, bijie 閉結, enci 恩慈, shanquan 善權. Qiu then probes the ascription of the so-called Luzi jing, by comparing the two Lumu jing to the Luzi jing as excerpted in JLYX. Although the sequence of the episodes varies, the Lumu jing T182b and T182a describe the same story and have similar wording. The Luzi jing quoted in the JLYX has the exact same content as T182a, and the wording is largely the same. In CSZJJ, the Luzi jing was credited to Zhi Qian. Since T182a and the Luzi jing have the same content and broadly similar wording, Qiu raises the possibility that Zhi Qian could also have translated T182a. However, Qiu proceeds to negate this hypothesis. He adduces words in the Luzi jing that Zhi Qian never used, and yet were used in Dharmarakṣa’s translations: jiaohua 狡猾, shibie 識别, xinshi 信誓, beihao 悲號, beilian 悲戀, cixin 慈信, renxing 仁行, rushen 汝身, duji 度濟, qidang 豈當. Moreover, some words are never seen in either Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa’s translations, as follows: mengmeng 矇矇, xiaotan 肅歎, shalie 殺獵, mixiu 糜朽, beilin 悲憐, mingzhi 命旨, enji 恩紀, and xiaoying huiyan 効應徵驗. [Note: 肅歎, 糜朽, 恩紀, and 効應徵驗 are in fact all hapax legomena in translation texts, and any hapax is of questionable evidential value in determining ascription – MR.] Therefore, Qiu argues that Zhi Qian could not have translated the Luzi jing, nor T182a. In the later part of the article, Qiu also mentioned another strong piece of evidence to support his argument. Words occurring in the Luzi jing, such as fude guobao 福德果報 and sanzhong puti 三種菩提, first appear in Chinese Buddhist translations after the 4th century, and words such as xiu shanfa 修善法 and fofa sengbao 佛法僧寶 also never appear in any translation by Zhi Qian. [Note: It appears that Qiu is here not considering the possibility that some of the wording of the Luzi jing as excerpted in the JLYX could be the result of paraphrase on the part of the compilers of JLYX – MR.] Secondly, since the text of the Luzi jing as cited in JYLX shows significant similarities with the Lumu jing T182a, Qiu examines evidence about the Luzi jing in the catalogs, and questions whether any such text ever existed. In CSZJJ, the earliest extant mention of the Luzi jing, Sengyou 僧祐 records that the Luzi jing was ascribed to Zhi Qian, as documented in Zhongjing bie lu 衆經别録. Dao’an does not mention it. By contrast, Dao’an does record a Lumu jing. However, both the Lumu jing and the Luzi jing are recorded in LDSBJ, which is somewhat less trustworthy. In KYL, Zhisheng 智昇 points out that the Luzi jing and the Lumu jing had the same content but different titles; therefore, Zhisheng notes that ascribing the Luzi jing to Zhi Qian was nonsense. Qiu argues that since the content and wording of the Lumu jing T182a are so close to the Luzi jing from JLYX, and JLYX states that this excerpt derives from the Luzi jing, the Luzi jing that Zhisheng saw was the excerpt in the JLYX. On these grounds, Qiu questions if there ever really existed a Luzi jing. However, Qiu also mentions other evidence supporting the existence of a Luzi jing in an “Indian” sources: Dharmakṣema’s translation of the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488, produced under the Northern Liang (379-439), quotes a Luzi jing. If the information in this translation is accurate, there could have existed some text with a title translated as Luzi jing at one point in history. However, the content in this source is utterly different than that of T182a and T182b. Finally, Qiu also argues that T182b is earlier than T182a. He reasons as follows: Some wording in T182a appears relatively late, such as mingzhi 命旨, which is otherwise seen only in two 5th-century texts [sic: T193 and T172, the ascriptions for which Qiu takes uncritically – MR], and xiaoying 效應, see in an 8th-century text [Amoghavajra’s T990 only; MR]. Furthermore, Sanskrit atha (khalu) is often used at the beginning of a paragraph to introduce a new point of view, open a further discussion, or even introduce an opposing view. According to Qiu, Dharmarakṣa usually translated directly as shi 時 or yushi 於是. The later translators tended to omit this wording. Compared to T182b, 7 instances of this term are omitted in T182a. Therefore, Qiu believes that Dharmarakṣa translated the Lumu jing T182b in a relatively literal or faithful manner, and then later translators abridged the T182b and produced T182a. Qiu also provided two more points to support this argument. The first one is the usage of yan 言, which is used frequently in Buddhist translation but was not common in daily usage. Therefore, the later editors changed yan 言 to a more vernacular word, yue 曰. In T182a, to where it equivalences to T182b, there are two places where yue substituted yan, and two places chose to use other words over yan. Moreover, T182b does uses xianzhe 賢者 for āyusmat, as used in addressing a Bhikkhu, but T182a omitted this word. Entry author: Jiali He |
|