| Identifier | T0605 [T] |
| Title | 禪行法想經 [T] |
| Date | 後漢 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| 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 |
[Zürcher 1991] Zürcher, Erik. "A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts." in Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen, eds. From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion in Honour of Prof. Jan Yün-hua, 277-304. Oakville, Canada: Mosaic Press, 1991. — 279, 297 |
Zürcher argues that An Shigao’s Chanxing faxiang jing 禪行法想經 T605 is one of a group of twenty-nine texts which can be considered “genuine” Han translations. Zürcher reaches this conclusion by a “critical selection” process which requires reliable bibliographic attribution, alongside corroborating evidence from glosses, colophons, prefaces, or commentaries; as well as internal “terminological and stylistic analysis” to identify distinctive features particular to certain translator’s teams. He adds that T605 is a “very short text containing a list of themes for contemplation.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Harrison 1997] Harrison, Paul. "The Ekottarika-Āgama Translations of An Shigao." In Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ: Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Petra Kieffer-Pülz and Jens-Uwe Hartmann, 261-283. Stisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1997. — 277 |
Harrison discusses this as another possible An Shigao EĀ text. 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 |
Out of 30-176 works which have been attributed to An Shigao, Zürcher notes that only 34 were ascribed by Dao’an; 4 of these were attributed only hesitatingly, and of the remaining 30, only 19 have been preserved. Zürcher says that the following 19 texts “with some degree of probability" can be attributed to An Shigao and his school: 長阿含十報法經 T13, 本欲生經 T14, 一切流攝守因經 T31, 本相猗致經 T36, 是法非法經 T48, 漏分布經 T57, 普法義經 T98, 五陰譬喻經 T105, 轉法輪經 T109, 八正道經 T112, 七處三觀經 T150a, 九橫經 T150b, 舍利弗摩訶目連遊四衢經 T397, 大安般守意經 T602, 陰持入經 T603, 禪行法想經 T605, 道地經 T607, 法受塵經 T792, 阿毘曇五法行經 T1557. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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. — 53-55 |
Nattier argues that 禪行法想經 T605 and 法受塵經 T792 might not actually be by An Shigao. For T792, she partly follows work by Hu Chirui 胡敕瑞 (2005), based upon internal evidence such as the use of the first-person pronoun 吾, [佛]遊於, 是以, genitive 之, and 女子. Nattier notes that T605 shares a number of these unusual expressions with T792, and adds further features to the list: 佛說是已, and 比丘受教從佛而聽. She suggests further that these two texts could usefully be compared with T27 and T604. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 792-798 |
The Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, and was extant at the time of Sengyou 僧祐. Fajing recorded this text as an alternate translation from the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含, and in this, was followed by Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄. All of these catalogues agree that it is an anonymous scripture. The text has survived as the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 T604. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists this Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects the reasons LDSBJ offers for this ascription as groundless. However, examining the text, Hayashiya finds that the vocabulary and tone of this text has a striking similarity to that of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 T605, which was identified as An Shigao’s work in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya refers to his own An Seikō no kiden oyobi yakukyō no kenkyū 安世高訳の紀傳及び譯經の研究 [Iseki: 詳細不明] for detailed discussion on the relationship between these two texts. Hayashiya here rehearses the gist of the argument in that article. According to Hayashiya, the styles of the two texts are so similar that both must have been translated by the same person. Also, since the part of CSZJJ that includes the Chan xing fa xiang jing is taken from Dao’an, and therefore, the claim that the Chan xing fa xiang jing was translated by An Shigao is very reliable. This being the case, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing should also be An Shigao's translation. However, Hayashiya also claims that the vocabulary used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing differs significantly from other works by An Shigao. For example, the phrase "yi shi Fo you" 一時佛遊 is used in the Chan xing fa xiang jing, while An Shigao mostly uses "yi shi Fo zai" 一時佛在. The overall tone of the Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經 is also more sophisticated than that of An Shigao’s other translations. Hayashiya suggets three possible explanations for the above situation. 1) Dao’an was wrong in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's translation; 2) the Chan xing fa xiang jing that was regarded as An Shigao's was a different text from the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing today in the Taishō, or; 3) An Shigao made some changes in his translation style over time, leading to a considerable difference in vocabulary and style between his earlier works and later works. Hayashiya states that it is difficult to determine which of these hypotheses is most plausible. Still, he tentatively takes (2) as most likely. He reasons that An Shigao’s translations have distinctive characteristics, because they are free from influences from other translators, being the oldest group of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts [note: An Xuan and Yan Fotiao are also of the same vintage: MR]. Thus, the fact that the style of the Chan xing fa xiang jing is different from that of An Shigao's other translations is significant, because his style is always distinct and clearly noticeable. Also, Hayashiya argues that it is highly unlikely that Dao’an made a mistake in classifying the Chan xing fa xiang jing as An Shigao's. An Shigao might also have changed his style over time, but this view is highly speculative, since in this view, the Chan xing fa xiang jing must be considered to be the only text different from all the other An Shigao translations. Thus, possibility (3) is also unlikely. Hayashiya therefore thinks that the most reasonable scenario is that the Chan xing fa xiang jing that Dao’an classified as by An Shigao was a different text from the version in Taishō, and that older text is lost. Hayashiya points out that it is likely that Dao’an would have classified the Chan xing fa xiang jing as anonymous if the text he saw had been the same as the extant Taishō Chan xing fa xiang jing, since Dao’an classified the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing, which should have been translated by the same person as the extant Chan xing fa xiang jing, as anonymous. Thus, he takes the view that there must have existed two Chan xing fa xiang jing: one translated by An Shigao, which is lost today; and the surviving text, an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. The date of composition is clear from the style. Accordingly, the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 in the Taishō should also be an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han, translated by the same person as the surviving Chan xing fa xiang jing 禪行法想經. Nonetheless, Hayashiya admits that his view is not decisive, because there is no record of any such text as a Chan xing fa xiang jing translated by An Shigao. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Demiéville 1954] Demiéville, Paul. “La Yogācārabhūmi de Saṅgharakṣa.” BÉFEO 44, no. 2 (1954): 339-436. — 353 n. 1 |
Demiéville states that the ascription to An Shigao of T604 and T605 is uncertain. 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 |
[Harrison 1997] Harrison, Paul. "The Ekottarika-Āgama Translations of An Shigao." In Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ: Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Petra Kieffer-Pülz and Jens-Uwe Hartmann, 261-283. Stisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1997. |
In his study of T150A, Harrison argues that 44 of its 47 discourses very likely stem from a larger EĀ tradition known to An Shigao. In addition to these 44 discourses, he further identifies six other extant texts as possibly sharing this provenance: T31, T32, T36, T57, T792, and T605. Harrison also points out that if we accept the association of these texts with EĀ, there will only be five sūtra translations left in the conservative corpus ascribed to An Shigao, for which we lack external evidence of an association with EĀ: T13, T14, T48, T98, T112. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|