| Identifier | T1507 [T] |
| Title | Zengyi ahan jing shu 增壹阿含經疏 [Palumbo 2013] |
| Date | 385 [Palumbo 2013] |
| Author | *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda?; Dao'an 道安; Zhao Zheng 趙整; Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Palumbo 2013] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [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. |
A Taisho note reads: 失譯人名附後漢錄. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2012] Palumbo, Antonello. "Models of Buddhist Kingship in Early Medieval China." In Zhonggu shidai de liyi, zongjiao yu zhidu 中古時代的禮儀、宗教與制度 (New Perspectives on Ritual, Religion and Institution in Medieval China), edited by Yu Xin 余欣, 287-338. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, 2012. — 313 |
Palumbo suggests the Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 T1507, a commentary to the Ekottarikāgama, was “probably” composed in in "the same period and place" as the *Ekottarikāgama, the root text upon which it comments [viz., in Chang'an between 383 and 385 --- MR]. He adds that in the Chu sanzang ji ji, T1507 is listed as an “anonymous translation” from an original which was “implausibly” attributed to Ānanda and Kāśyapa. Since the Gujin yijing tuji (664 or after) the text has been dated to the later Han period. But in 730, in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu, Zhisheng remarked that the text was a commentary on the first four sections of the Zengyi ahan jing, “seemingly translated by the same person who was also responsible for the scripture’s translation.” Palumbo considers Zhisheng’s attribution “largely correct,” but argues further that there are “stylistic and terminological uses” which suggest that T1507 was most likely authored by Zhu Fonian in China, before Kumārajīva’s 404 translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang 2011] Fang Yixin 方一新. "Cong bufen Fojiao xiguan yongyu kan Fenbie gongde lun de fanyi niandai 從部分佛教習慣用語看《分別功德論》的翻譯年代." In Hanwen Fodian yuyanxue: Disan jie Hanwen Fodian yuyanxue guoji yantaohui lunwenji 漢文佛典語言學---第三屆漢文語言學國際研討會論文集, edited by the Fagu Fojiao Xueyuan 法鼓佛教學院, 102-113. Taipei: Chengchi University/Fagu Fojiao Xueyuan, 2011. |
Fang first summarizes traditional claims about the dates of the Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 T1507 in catalogues, grouping the evidence into four groups: 1. Anonymous and dates unknown: CSZJJ, Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL. 2. Dharmarakṣa: DZKZM (explicitly rejected by Zhisheng). 3. An Shigao (Later Han): LDSBJ, KYL. 4. Same translator as the Zhengyi ahan jing: KYL [this appears to contradict 3, but both assertions are indeed found in KYL --- SC]. The current ascription in Taisho appears to be influenced by the third tradition, and states that the text is anonymous, but from Later Han. Fang then argues that T1507 is later than the Western Jin 西晉. His key evidence is a terminological analysis centring on eight key phrases: 住惡莫作諸善奉行自淨其意; 無處不有; 發無上意; 良祐福田/良祐田; 體中何如; 無為大道; 面如桃花色/口如含丹; 殊途同歸 [Fang sometimes uses unreliable traditional ascriptions in establishing his benchmarks against which to date these key phrases, e.g. the ascription of T210 to "*Vighna 維祇難", or the ascription of T5 to Bo Fazu 白法祖---MR.] Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Palumbo 2013] Palumbo, Antonello. An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經. Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research Series 7. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Co., 2013. — 185-186, 255-258, 262, and passim |
The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 T1507 is actually a commentary on Chs 1-3 and part of Ch 4 the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T125. Palumbo (2013) is now the most detailed study on this work. Palumbo summarises the treatment of T1507 in historical catalogues, 164-170. He also surveys prior studies in modern scholarship, 171-178. A long Appendix also gives a detailed summary of the contents of the text, and its correspondences to relevant parts of T125, 325-364. Palumbo's arguments are too complex to summarise here in full. He argues that T1507 is closely connected to the Zhuanji sanzang ji zazang zhuan 撰集三藏及雜藏傳 T2026, and the "Preface" to the *Ekottarikāgama (EĀ 1). All these documents give a narrative about the compilation of the Āgamas, with similar features: a fourfold model of the canon, with a *Kṣudrakapiṭaka in addition to the other usual "three piṭakas"; and the peculiar notion that the First Council was attended by 84,000 arhats; a structure of the Sūtrapiṭaka that gives pride of place to EĀ (214-215). T1507 shares with T2026 other features that relate them even more closely than either is related to EĀ 1: ascription of the Abhidharmapiṭaka to the Buddha's disciple Mahākātyāyana; the use of 大法 for "Abhidharma"; the use of a specifically worded conceit characterising the Abhidharma as "the insignia of all Dharmas"; and a similar outline of the content of the four Āgamas (215). On this basis, Palumbo suggests that T1507 and T2026 might be have been authored by the same persons (216). Palumbo argues: "Though it betrays a partially Chinese authorship...the commentary is not a 'Chinese' text insofar as it visibly relies upon contents and explanations that can only have been provided by a foreign informant...a number of dogmatic positions...rich narrative contents, which in most cases are not attested anywhere else in the Buddhist literature in Chinese....Most importantly...the commentary knows and reports traditions on the transmission of the Ekottarikāgama that cannot have originated in China." On the basis of internal evidence, Palumbo argues further that the group that produced the text must have included: 1) A foreign informant, whom Palumbo identifies with the person the text refers to as "that man" 其人, and suggests should be identified with Dharmanandin (whose name Palumbo reconstructs as Dharmananda), and was the source of information which could only have been known by someone from outside the Chinese context. 2) *Dharmanandin, as suggested by a) the presence of particular Aśoka narratives, and b) a listing of the four Āgamas that gives priority to EĀ and MĀ. In particular, the contribution of Dharmanandin is indicated by the presence in T1507 of a version of the story of Aśoka's brother *Sugātra, which is paralleled in the Divyāvadāna, but, according to Palumbo, was not otherwise available in China at the time (241, 256). 3) probably Dao'an, as indicated by a) an "esoteric" view of the Vinaya (meaning that its contents should not be communicated to laypersons), b) the identification of Kātyāyanīputra, the author of the *Jñānaprasthāna, with the Buddha’s disciple Mahākātyāyana, and the identification of the *Jñānaprasthāna with the Abhidharmapiṭaka, and c) various “mannerisms” and “hobbyhorses”---all paralleled in Dao’an’s writings (大法 for "Abhidharma", 身子 for Śāriputra, the Analects allusion 未墜於地; 249-251). 4) a Chinese scholar, perhaps either Dao'an himself or Zhao Zheng 趙整, as indicated by an allusion to Mao Heng's 毛亨 preface on the Book of Odes (Shi jing), and a set of verses that rhyme (247-249). 5) Zhu Fonian, as indicated by three items of translation terminology (石室 for Takṣaśilā, 真淨 for Śuddhodana, 火鬘童子 for Jyotipāla māṇava; 251-254). Palumbo writes, "It is all but a foregone conclusion ... that [T1507] is the work of the original translation team, which produced the first redactions of the Zengyi ahan jing [Ekottarikāgama] in 384-385: Dharmananda, Zhu Fonian, Dao'an, and Zhao Zheng, whose distinctive voices echo throughout the commentary" (257). He connects this scenario of production of the commentary alongside the root text with Funayama's theory of "lecture texts" (258-259). Palumbo argues that the text must have been produced between 383, which is the earliest date at which the root text, the Ekottarikāgama, was available in any form; and 402-406, i.e. the period of Kumārajīva's activity. Palumbo refers to a) the "esoteric" view that the Vinaya should not be communicated to laypeople, which he thinks could not have survived the moment in 405-406 when Kumārajīva's translation of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya was produced in a glare of publicity. He also argues this pre-Kumārajīva dating on the basis of various other ideas and features in the text: b) the identification of Kātyāyanīputra, the author of the *Jñānaprasthāna, with the Buddha’s disciple Mahākātyāyana, and the identification of the *Jñānaprasthāna with the Abhidharmapiṭaka, c) the fact that canonical citations are from older texts (esp. for the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, which Palumbo believes would have been replaced by Kumārajīva's new translation T475), d) reference to older Prajñāpāramitā texts as the "Larger Version" 大品 (which term later came to refer to Kumārajīva's translation). On the basis of his thesis that Dao'an was among the authors, Palumbo then further narrows the date of the text down to the period before 385, when Dao'an died (258). Palumbo's theories about the production of T1507 are intertwined with his theories about the translation history of the *Ekottarikāgama in China. In brief, he argues that four different recensions of EĀ were produced at the end of the fourth century: three in Dao'an's translation group in Chang'an, 383-385; and one more by Saṅghadeva and Fahe in Luoyang between 390 and early 391 (see separate CBC@ entry at https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/text/2237/). Within this frame, he identifies the root text commented upon in T1507 as his hypothetical third recension, produced in early 385 by Dao'an and Fahe (revising a second translation); and he identifies this third recension with the extant T125 (261). Against this backdrop, Palumbo considers various hypothetical scenarios for an even more precise date for T1507 (258), before concluding that it must have been produced after March 385, when the third recension was completed; he argues, finally, that it was probably completed between March/April and June/July of 385 (261). (Note that this theory requires the revision of the traditional date of Dao'an's death, for which see 55-58.) This was a time when Chang'an was embroiled in the thick of war, and indeed, Palumbo speculates that the apparently incomplete and rough character of T1507 is to be explained by work being cut off by the death of Dao'an and the fall of Chang'an. Palumbo shows that the T1507 version of the story of Aśoka's "hell-prison", also paralleled in the Paṃśupradānāvadāna (Divy. 27), corresponds "nearly verbatim" with the same story as found in the *Dharmavivardhana-sūtra T2045, translated in 391. In comparison to the T2045 story, T1507 is shorter. However, surprisingly, he argues that we should not treat this as evidence that T1507 was compiled with reference to T2045, and therefore completed after 591, because a second story from the Aśoka cycle found in T1507 is not found in T2045. Instead, he proposes that the source for the T1507 version was an oral tradition borne by Dharmanandin --- who went on to recite the Vorlage for T2045 at the time of translation in 591. In order for this argument to carry, Palumbo has to conjecture that a draft translation of the text eventually represented by T2045 was produced between 383 and 385, and he supports this conjecture with reference to some suppositions about the relation between the moral of the narrative, the ideology of kingship, and Dharmanandin's relations with his patrons (238-246). Palumbo also reports an alternate title for the text, 增壹阿含經疏, which is reported in CSZJJ (T2145:55.21c13) alone among all the catalogues. Palumbo prefers this title, as more accurately representing the nature and content of T1507. He connects the text to the emergence of the shu 疏 as a distinct genre of Buddhist commentary from the very practice of lecturing on sūtras (Palumbo here follows in part the work of Mou Runsun), and he even suggests that T1507 is our earliest exemplar of this genre (262-265). The current title, by contrast, Palumbo proposes, was "probably the brainchild of a slipshod palace librarian in Jiankang" under the Liang (6c). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 142c5 |
T1507 is treated as anonymous by Fajing. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 54b19 |
The dating of T1507 to the E. Han in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates to LDSBJ, where it is entered among a list of anonymous texts at the end of Fascicle 4, which treats works of the Han dynasty. Fei cites CSZJJ 僧祐律師出三藏記, Gu lu and Jiu lu 古舊二錄, and Dao’an: 分別功德經五卷(迦葉阿難撰) . Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 21c13-14 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T1507 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. 分別功德經五卷(一名增一阿含經疏迦葉阿難造). 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. — 752-753 |
Sakaino maintains that the anonymous Fenbie gongde lun 分別功徳論 (T1507) was not translated in the Latter Han period, since it has to be later than the translation of the *Ekottarikagama 增一阿含經 T125 (on which it is a commentary). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Fang and Gao 2003] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列过. "Fengbie gongde lun fanyi niandai chutan”〈分别功德论〉翻译年代初探. Zhejiang daxue xuebao (renwen shehui kexue ban) 浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版） (2003): 5:93-100. |
Based on a few groups of stylometric markers, Fang and Gao refute the traditional dating of the 分別功德論 Fenbie gongde lun T1507 to the Later Han: 1. Bei 被 is used to indicate passive voice, but passive voice is rarely indicated this way in Later Han texts. 2. Interrogatives: (1) ye 耶 predominates T1507, followed by ye 也. Hu 乎 is the most common such interrogative particle in Later Han translations, followed by 耶. However, on the whole, Later Han writers seldom relied on particles to indicate questions. (2) “頗(有)…不?” [translation: “quite…, is it not?” ---SC]: very rare in Later Han texts, including non-Buddhist texts. (3) hezhe 何者、hedengren 何等人: both rare in Later Han texts. 3. Indic transcription terms, including proper names: Analü 阿那律 (Aniruddha)、alianruo 阿練若 (*araṇya)、Qipo 耆婆 (Jīva[ka])、Qiyu 耆域 (Jīva[ka])、nanwu 南無 (*namo < namas)、lan 嵐. 4. Common Chinese words and phrases: shuangsheng'er 雙生兒 [actually just really rare in the canon---SC], luotuo 駱駝、 suanshu 算術、tutou 秃頭、 shu tu tong gui 殊途同歸. On this basis, Fang and Gao conclude that it is more likely that T1507 was produced during the Wei and Jin dynasties. Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Gao 2012] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列过. “Cong wenxian jizai kan Fenbie gongde lun de fanyi niandai” 从文献记载看〈分别功德论〉的翻译年代. In Zongguo dianji yu wenhua luncong 中国典籍与文化论丛, vol. 14, 203-213. Fenghuang chuban she, 2012. |
Fang and Gao examine evidence pertaining to the Fenbie gongde lun in all the major catalogues and summarize as follows: 1. Title: Some catalogues record the title Fenbie gongde jing 分別功德經 (CSZJJ, GJYJTJ) while others record Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 (Fajing, Jingtai, DTNDL, Yancong). Based on the excerpts in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 and the Fa yuan zhu lin 法苑珠林, they conclude they are both the same text as the received T1507. 2. Length: Some catalogues record the text as 3 fascicles long, while others give 5 fascicles. Notably, the fascicle number for the excerpts in both Jing lü yi xiang and Fa yuan zhu lin accord with the fascicle numbering in the received T1507. 3. Ascription and dating: (1) No dates and no translator: CSZJJ, Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, LDSBJ. (2) No translator, but dated to the Later Han: LDSBJ [here Gao and Fang’s summary of information in LDSBJ appears to be inconsistent, because LDSBJ on the whole lists T1507 as having no translator or dates, but at the same time, it does list it under the Later Han catalogue --- SC]; also GJYJTJ, DZKZM, KYL. (3) Dharmarakṣa: DZKZM [again, this appears to contradict the information given under point (2) above, but DZKZM does make both of these claims about Fenbie gongde jing/lun in different places---SC]. (4) Possibly shares the same translator as the Zhengyi ahan jing: KYL [also appears to contradict (2), but Zhisheng also does make both remarks --- SC.] Emphasizing this last speculation from Zhisheng, as well as the alternate title given in CSZJJ, viz. Zhengyi ahan jing shu 增一阿含經疏, Fang and Gao conclude that the majority of the external evidence does not support a dating to the Later Han. Rather, T1507 most likely dates from the Eastern Jin, as both authors had already proposed in previous papers based on the style of the text. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Wang 2012] Wang Yili 王毅力. "Cong cihui jiaodu kan Fenbie gongde lun de fanyi nian dai.“ Zongjiaoxue yanjiu 宗教学研究 (2012): 1:143-147. |
Based on internal evidence, Wang judges the traditional dating of the Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 T1507 to the Later Han to be incorrect, and proposes instead a dating of Jin, possibly Eastern Jin rather than Western Jin. He bases his argument on internal evidence of the following types: translations/transcriptions of Indic words, regular Chinese words, and frequently used words. Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
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. — 7 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Xiangming argues that the translation of the Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 T1507 does not predate the period of the Eastern Jin Dynasty and the Sixteen kingdoms. They refer to Chen Xiangming 陳祥明. “Hanwen Fodian shiyi jing yuyan shidai kaobian––yi Fenbie gongde lun weili jianji qi yizuozhe” 漢文佛典失譯經語言時代考辨——以《分別功德論》為例兼及其譯作者. Taishan xueyuan xuebao 泰山學院學報 4 (2017): 78–91. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|