| Identifier | T0195 [T] |
| Title | 佛說十二遊經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | *Kālodaka, 迦留陀伽 [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 |
[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 |
[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 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). — 313 |
This is the sole work ascribed to *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽. Is this the same text mentioned as an apocryphon by Zürcher, 313? Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — s.v., Vol.5, 187-188 (Terasaki Shūichi 寺崎修一) |
Terasaki Shūichi 寺崎修一 summarizes the content of the catalogues on this title as follows: CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists two Shi'er you jing 十二遊經 (one juan 巻 each) and classifies both of them as anonymous scriptures. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists three alternate translations, referring to the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 and some other older catalogues. The attributions of those three LDSBJ provides are as follows: the first was supposedly translated by *Kālaruci 彊梁婁至 in 266 or 281 CE; the second version was translated by *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽 in 392 CE; and the third version was translated by Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in the [Liu] Song 宋 Period. LDSBJ states that there were only minor differences between these three versions. Later catalogues such as DTNDL 内典錄, GJYJTJ 古今譯經圖紀, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄 followed LDSBJ in listing three alternate versions. Terasaki accepts that there were three versions, but points out that only the second of the versions listed above, by *Kālodaka, translation is extant. The alleged existence of three versions should mean that there did indeed exist an Indic original text, but Terasaki suggests that there is a possibility that *Kālodaka himself wrote the text, rather than translating it. Even if he did translate the original, it must have been done in a rather loose manner: because, for example, it contains some names of Chinese dynasty. The text also contains certain claims that are not seen in any other texts. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 65a8-11, 70b27-c2, 91b24 |
In LDSBJ, a title matching T195, 十二遊經, is the only title ascribed to 彊梁婁至 (*Kalyāṇaruci?), citing the Shixing lu and Baochang: 十二遊經一卷 右一經一卷。武帝世。外國沙門彊梁婁至。晉言真喜。太始二年[in the chronology in Fascicle 3 the date for this text is instead given as 泰康二年 = W. Jin 281 CE]於廣州譯。見始興及寶唱錄. A second notice then states that another translation with the same title was the only work produced by *Kālodaka, citing Zhu Daozu, the “miscellaneous catalogue(s?) of the Jin”, and Baochang, and stating it is only slightly different from *Kalyāṇaruci’s version: 十二遊經一卷(第二出與彊[v.l. 疆 SYM] 梁譯者小異) 右一卷。孝武帝世。外國沙門迦留陀伽。晉言時永。太元十七年譯。見竺道祖晉世雜錄及寶唱錄. A third notice then ascribes the same title to Guṇabhadra, stating that it is the second version issued (after *Kālodaka, now forgetting about the supposed *Kalyāṇaruci version?), and citing the Jiu lu: 十二遊經一卷(第二出與晉世迦留陀伽譯者小異見舊錄). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 137b5 |
This title features in a list of 61 offshoot/byproduct 別生 texts. Fajing stipulates that he does not know which text is the source of each of these texts 右六十一經。是諸經所出。既未見經本. This list in turn is part of a larger list which he says were all excerpted from larger texts at the whim of persons of later generations, etc. 並是後人隨自意好。於大本內。抄出別行。或持偈句。便為卷部, T2146 (LV) 138a3-5. Fajing does not give an attribution. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 30b10 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T195 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): 十二遊經一卷(舊錄云十二由經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
|
In his catalogue of anonymous texts in Facicle 4 of CSZJJ, Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for 110 titles, including items he states are extant, and also items he marks "presently missing". This shows that each such title, being listed in the Jiu lu, was extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. Texts among these which appear to possibly be extant are as follows, here listed alongside the ascriptions given in the present Taishō to the possibly corresponding texts (note that this comparison serves in several cases mainly to show how tenuous the T ascriptions must be, if the texts in question are indeed those listed in CSZJJ 4): 沙曷比丘功德[v.l. 德經SYM]一卷(舊錄云沙曷比丘經) T501, Faju Entry author: Michael Radich |
|