| Identifier | T0167 [T] |
| Title | 太子慕魄經 [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 |
[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. |
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to An Shigao as reliable. 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 |
[Ui 1971] Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971. — 439-440 |
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. - Sengyou lists a Taizi Mupo jing太子慕魄經, but ascribes it to Dharmarakṣa 法護. Sengyou gives no alternate translation of this text. - LDSBJ lists a Taizi Mupo jing太子墓魄經 (v.l. 慕 for 墓, Yuan, Ming) as one of An Shigao’s works. It also lists the Taizi Mupo jing太子墓魄經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, stating that it is the second “issue” of the text 第二出. Ui claims that this “second issue” implies that Fei thought that the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 ascribed An Shigao were alternate translations of the same text. However, Fei did not present any evidence for the ascription to An Shigao. - KYL follows LDSBJ in listing both titles, one ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the other to An Shigao. - (The Taishō includes the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 T168 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕[v.l. 沐 SYM]魄經 T167 ascribed to An Shigao .) - Ui claims that the ascription to An Shigao is incorrect, as it was first given by Fei without any supporting evidence. - Ui then asserts that T167, ascribed to An Shigao, is indeed an alternate translation of T168, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and also of story no. 38 in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152. The text is a jātaka 本生物語. Ui also points out that the character 墓 was used instead of 慕 because of similarity of sound or a transcription mistake. 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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 71-75 |
Sakaino maintains that the following 13 texts ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ were taken from a list of Dharmarakṣa’s works in CSZJJ, and calls the resulting information "erroneous and confused" 誤傳混同: - 溫室洗浴眾僧經 [cf. T701 ascribed to An Shigao] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[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 have argued that the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕魄經 T167 was translated by Dharmarakṣa, instead of An Shigao, while the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 T168, ascribed in the Taishō to Dharmarakṣa, could be an anonymous translation produced after the Southern Liang Dynasty. 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.148–171. Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Jiuti An Shigao yi Taizi Mupo jing fanyi niandai kaobian — jian lun ti Zhu Fahu yi Taizi Mupo jing de niandai wenti” 舊題安世高譯《太子慕魄經》翻譯年代考辨——兼論題竺法護譯《太子墓魄經》的年代問題. Wenshi 3 (2008): 77–99. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
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 Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕魄經 T167 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Gao 2008] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Jiuti An Shigao yi Taizi Mupo jing fanyi niandai kaobian — jian lun ti Zhu Fahu yi Taizi Mupo jing de niandai wenti” 舊題安世高譯《太子慕魄經》翻譯年代考辨——兼論題竺法護譯《太子墓魄經》的年代問題.” Wenshi 文史 3 (2008): 77–99. Republished in Fang and Gao, Dong Han yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究, 148–171. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012. |
In the Taishō canon, the Mūkapaṅgu (P. Mūgapakka) Sūtra 太子慕魄經 T167 is ascribed to An Shigao, while another similar scripture, the Mūkapaṅgu Sūtra 太子墓魄經 T168, is attributed to Dharmarakṣa. Fang and Gao first survey the evidence of the catalogues, to argue that only one version of the text was known under the Liang; the second appears under the Sui, whereupon the ascriptions to An Shigao and Dharmaraksa are added in LDSBJ, and subsequently cemented in place by Zhisheng in KYL. They also ascertain that excerpts in JLYX T2121 are from T167, and in FYZL T2122 from T168. The authors then examine specific phraseological and grammatical elements from T167. They argue that Dharmarakṣa translated T167, as it shares linguistic features with Dharmarakṣa’s other translations, while T168 could be an anonymous translation produced after the Southern Liang Dynasty, as its linguistic features are not associated with Dharmarakṣa. The main evidence the authors use to support their arguments is as follows: 1) Phraseology: 驂駕, 誑詐, 陵易, 甚用, ~怪所以, 兩目並青 (面目竝青), 乃如是也, 求死不得/欲生不得, V著一面（e.g. 持著一面） Entry author: Michael Radich |
|