| Identifier | T0105 [T] |
| Title | 五陰譬喻經 [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 |
[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. — 51-52 |
Nattier discusses this text alongside T109. Ui accepted them as authentic works of An Shigao, but not Zürcher. Nattier identifies some specific lexical features otherwise unknown in Shigao, and also notes that these two texts display uncharacteristic four-character prosody, and uncharacteristic five-character verse. "It seems quite certain that it is not the work of An Shigao." Zürcher thought that they were still Han texts; Nattier is not so sure, since she thinks some features of the vocabulary were probably Zhi Qian coinages. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 1323-1332 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hīnayāna translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taishō (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SĀ 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SĀ 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[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. — 300 |
Zürcher lists the Wu yin piyu jing 河中大聚沫經; 五陰譬喻經 T105 among a list of “three archaic texts with doubtful attributions.” Dao’an attributed T105 to An Shigao, but Zürcher argues that the style and terminology of the text are definitely not those of An Shigao and his team. He adds that T105 is a “very short text containing a number of stereotyped similes illustrating the unreality of the five constituent elements (skandha) of the pseudo-person.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 186-188 |
Saitō introduces the views of some scholars about the ascription of T105. Hayashiya argues that it is not An Shigao’s work based on the vocabulary and the organization of the verses, which differs from that of other An Shigao’s works ["An Seikō yaku no Zōagon to Zōichiagon 安世高訳の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 1-1 (1937): 11-50]. Erik Zürcher shares the same view [“Late Han Vernacular Elements in the Earliest Buddhist Translations,” and “A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts.”]. Ui, on the other hand, accepts the ascription to An Shigao, but he also admits that it is odd for this text ascribed to An Shigao to contain verses [Hakuju Ui, Yakukyōshi kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971), 351]. This text was first ascribed to An Shigao in CSZJJ followed by other catalogues. Saitō maintains that T105 is not An Shigao’s work, agreeing with Hayashiya and Zürcher, although due to the brevity of the text it is difficult to compare its vocabulary with other An Shigao’s works. His reasons are the following: the text is written largely on the basis of four-character prosody 四言句, unlike An Shigao’s other works; the term 偈 is used instead of the ones An Shigao used, viz., 絶, 縛束説, etc., and; the verse part of the text is in five–character lines, while An Shigao translated verses into prose in his other works. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 186-188 |
Saitō maintains that T105 is not An Shigao’s work, agreeing with Hayashiya and Zürcher, although due to the brevity of the text it is difficult to compare its vocabulary with other An Shigao’s works. His reasons are the following: the text is written largely on the basis of four-character prosody 四言句, unlike An Shigao’s other works; the term 偈 is used instead of terms An Shigao is known to have used for the same meaning elsewhere, viz., 絶, 縛束説, etc., and; the verse part of the text is in five–character lines, while An Shigao translated verse into prose in his other works. 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 |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 6a18 |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 五陰喻經: 五陰喻經一卷(舊錄云五陰譬喻經) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|