| Identifier | T1469 [T] |
| Title | 佛說迦葉禁戒經 [T] |
| Date | W. Jin 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Translator 譯 | Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 [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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 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 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.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 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 (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. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 106-108 |
Ōno points out that the so-called *Kāśyapasaṃvara-sūtra(?) 迦葉禁戒經 T1469, ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, is a digest of sections from the Chinese translation of the Kāśyapaparivarta entitled 遺日摩尼寶經 T350, which is ascribed [incorrectly in Ōno’s view] to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖; and further, that although traditional catalogues regarded this short text (T1469) as a “hīnayāna” scripture, it certainly belongs to the Mahāyāna, since it is an excerpt of the Monibao jing 摩尼寶經. Ōno asserts on the basis of comparison that T350 must be the source of T1469, rather than the other way around. T1469 is mentioned in Dao'an's catalogue, and on that basis, Ōno asserts that T374 is a terminus ante quem (following Hayashiya for the date of 374). Acoording to Ōno, until KYL, T1469 circulated under different titles, which were regarded as different texts and given varying ascriptions. Ōno considers this to be a characteristic feature of texts that were not "proper translation sūtras" 正譯經. In CSZJJ, T1469 was listed as the 迦葉戒經或云迦葉禁戒經 in Daoan´s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄, and also as the 真偽沙門經一卷(或云真偽經) in the main section of the newly compiled [catalogue] of anonymous extant texts 新集失譯有本部; and Fajing lists the 摩訶比丘經一卷(一名真偽沙門經) and the 迦葉禁戒經一卷 next to each other. It was KYL that pointed out that all of these titles are alternate titles for the same text, and recorded that text under the title 迦葉禁戒經. Traditional catalogues proposed four different views about the ascription of T1469: 1) Dao’an, Fajing, Yancong 彥琮錄, and the catalogue of anonymous “hīnayāna” Vinaya texts 小乗毘尼失譯錄 of LDSBJ list it as anonymous; 2) LDSBJ (in juan ten, citing the Bie lu 別錄), DTNDL, the Gu jin yijing tu ji 古今譯經圖紀 T2151, DZKZM, KYL, the Zhenyuan 貞元 catalogue T2156 (and the Taishō) ascribe it to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 of the Song period (however, Ōno points out that the vocabulary of the text is older than that of the Song); 3) LDSBJ (in juan seven, citing the anonymous Shixing lu 始興錄), and DTNDL and the Zhenyuan catalogue following LDSBJ, ascribe the text to Tui gong 退公 of the E. Jin (however, Ōno comments that this ascription is hard to buy); and 4) LDSBJ (in juan ten), DTNDL, Gu jin yijing tu ji, DZKZM and others, ascribe the text to Huijian 慧簡 of the Song period (KYL excised this ascription). (107-108). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 866-871 |
|
Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 added in LDSBJ are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ or Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single or several translators. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Juqu Jingsheng is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Most of the titles newly ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng by Fei were actually taken either from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 (21 titles) or from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 (10 titles). Sakaino claims that it is clear that Fei just took the entry baselessly from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts, since too many titles were newly given the ascription by Fei, and, furthermore, Fei imports most of the titles in a particular section 段 in the catalogue into his list of works that he ascribes to Juqu Jingsheng. To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists all the 35 titles that Fei listed as Juqu Jingsheng’s work, indicating which ones were taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts and which ones were from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (868-869). Sakaino asserts that 4 titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in CSZJJ (3 extant, 1 lost) are the only reliable record of Juqu Jingsheng’s work (871). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Jiashe jie jing 迦葉戒經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云迦葉禁戒經; 17b5. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Jiashe jinjie jing 迦葉禁戒經 T1469, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|