| Identifier | T0145 [T] |
| Title | 佛母般泥洹經 [T] |
| Date | 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Author | Huijian, 慧簡, 惠簡 [Strickmann 1990] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Nattier DDB] |
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 |
[Nattier 2023] Nattier, Jan. "The 'Missing Majority': Dao'an's Anonymous Scriptures Revisted." In Chinese Buddhism and the Scholarship of Erik Zürcher, edited by Jonathan Silk and Stefano Zacchetti, 94-140. Leiden: Brill, 2023. — 95 n. 7, 115-116 w. nn. 73-75, |
Nattier argues that a small group of anonymous scriptures, comprising T5, T20, T46, T145, T392, T507, and T582, were probably composed in the South in the third century. Her argument is based upon the presence of some very rare vocabulary/terminology, which otherwise appears (in datable texts) in translations produced in this time and place (T225B, T152), and also on the absence of other, very common terms. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2023] Nattier, Jan. "The 'Missing Majority': Dao'an's Anonymous Scriptures Revisted." In Chinese Buddhism and the Scholarship of Erik Zürcher, edited by Jonathan Silk and Stefano Zacchetti, 94-140. Leiden: Brill, 2023. — 95 n. 7, 115-116 w. nn. 73-75, 118-129 |
The earliest external evidence for the existence of the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145 is found in the sixth century, in citations in anthologies compiled by Sengyou and Baochang (120). However, Nattier argues that T145 is one of a small group of anonymous sūtras that can be identifed as belonging to the Wu kingdom. Her argument is based in part on a cluster of rare items of vocabulary and terminology, which are only found in texts of secure ascription from this same period, like T225B and T152. Nattier gives examples of such wording in T145 at 120 n. 88. Nattier's argument is also based upon the close comparison of T145 with T144, which is a parallel version of "the same" text (carries the same content). She identifies a number of differences between the two texts: a tendency to transcription in T144, contrasting with a tendency to translation in T145; greater brevity in T144 than in T145. Nattier argues that T144 is even earlier than T145, and T145 was produced with reference to T144. This pattern fits with other known cases of texts that were produced under the Wu, especially by Zhi Qian, with reference to earlier versions of the same texts (e.g. T224 > T225B, T362 > T361). An important corollary of these observations is that the titles of the two texts appear to have been swapped at some point in transmission history (an argument made independently by Hayashiya many years ago; n. 84). This development must have taken place early, since the texts are cited under their swapped titles in anthologies of the sixth century. Nattier also notes that in T144, a number of proper names shift from one transcription to another at a certain point in the text (126): for Vaiśālī, Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and Yaśodha. (Mysteriously, the point at which this shift takes place is not the same for all the names in question.) She argues that this indicates that even before it was revised or used as a basis to produce T145, T144 itself had already undergone some sort of revision, which was left incomplete, and which is only betrayed by these traces within the text itself. She argues that the transcriptions in the first part of the text are products of revision, appealing to two criteria: it is generally the case that revision is "front-loaded", i.e. that revisers work from the beginning of a text forwards; and the transcriptions in the latter part of the text, in each case, are rare than those in the first part. This suggests that the transcriptions in the latter part of the text are original. The better-known transcriptions in the first part of the text align with known usage in the school of Lokakṣema, and this fact, along with the rarity of the "unrevised" transcriptions, suggests that this base layer of T144 might be very old indeed. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier DDB] Nattier, DDB s.v. 逮 — Accessed April 2014. |
"An anonymous translation—the attribution to Huijian 慧簡 is not credible." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Chen 2005] Chen, Jinhua. "Some Aspects of the Buddhist Translation Procedure in Early Medieval China: With Special References to a Longstanding Misreading of a Keyword in the Earliest Extant Buddhist Catalogue in East Asia." Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662. — 657-661 |
|
Chen lists thirty-three texts discussed in Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji for which dates are given, but where those dates cannot be corroborated by any "translation documents" [meaning primary sources discussing circumstances etc. of translation, such as colophons]: Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等般泥洹經 T378; Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Strickmann 1990] Strickmann, Michel. "The Consecration Sutra: A Buddhist Book of Spells" in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 75-118. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. — 91-92 |
Strickmann mentions that "a century and a half" after his time, Huijian was credited with "a list of works", referring to LDSBJ T2034:49.93b7-c7 [also followed by DTNDL T2149:55.260c22-261a2]. [These catalogues mention 25 works that were supposedly translated by Huijian 慧簡 at Luye-si 鹿野寺: 1. 藥師琉璃光經; 2. 商人求財經; 3. 僧王五天使經; 4. 善生王子經; 5. 懈怠耕者經; 6. 釋迦畢罪經; 7. 貧窮老公經; 8. 殺身濟賈經; 9. 舍衛城中人喪子發狂經; 10. 譬喻經; 11. 請賓頭盧法經; 12. 阿難見水光瑞經; 13. 呪願經; 14. 瞿曇彌記果經; 15. 學人亂意經; 16. 竊為沙門經; 17. 佛母般泥洹經; 18. 長者子六過出家經; 19. 獵師捨家學道事經; 20. 瞿曇彌經; 21. 栴闍摩暴志謗佛事經; 22. 二老男子見佛出家得道經; 23. 真偽沙門經; 24. 佛涅槃後諸比丘經; 25. 大力士出家得道經; . Of these, the correspondence to extant works would seem to be as follows: Strickmann points out that the "sources" for these texts, viz. MĀ T26, EĀ T125, had already been translated into Chinese by Huijian's time. "Thus [Huijian] , or whoever was responsible for these brief independent versions, was obviously rewriting and adapting on the basis of prior Chinese translations." For Strickmann, this is consistent with the types of content and likely working method of T1331. Sengyou also ascribed T1331(12) to Huijian, and Strickmann suspects that this is a clue to the likelihood that actually, the entirety of T1331 was actually compiled and/or composed (in part) by Huijian. This leads him to note some material and tendencies common to T1331 and the present group of texts: the Fo bannihuan hou bian ji 佛般泥洹後變記, which is appended as a postface to T145, "accords perfectly with the parallel information included in [T1331]"; T1331 also includes "adaptations of tales from the Āgamas (like those in the independent little sūtras attributed to [Huijian]), and so on. Strickmann therefore suggests that "whether or not we are justified in retaining Huijian's name on any of these works, we must note that [LDSBJ] has effectively brought together a body of cognate literature, and one that appears to represent an important current in fifth-century writing and practice." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 513-523 |
According to Hayashiya, there exist the following three alternative translations of the Da’aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 (“Sūtra on the parinirvāṇa of Mahāprajāpatī”), including the Da’aidao bannihuan jing itself, all of which are listed in CSZJJ: --- Da’aidao bannihuan jing, an anonymous scripture, listed in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録; All three were extant at the time of Sengyou. The Taishō has two texts in this group, which are: --- Da’aidao bannihuan jing T144 ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖, and Regarding these ascriptions to 白法祖 and 慧簡, Hayashiya claims that both are first given by LDSBJ and are utterly groundless (515). Accordingly, Hayashiya examines the vocabulary used in T144 and T145, and asserts that the two texts are rather old, and were most likely translated in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hayashiya also points out that the two texts to a considerable extent share vocabulary, because one of the two referred to the other during the translation process. Hayashiya thinks that probably T144 was produced first, and T145 referred to it later, although even if that were indeed the case, T145 would be still as old as the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. (In support of his claims, Hayashiya lists distinctive words and phrases used in T144 and T145 at 518-519.) Hayashiya also argues that the titles of 大愛道般泥洹經 T144 and 佛母般泥洹經 T145 must have been switched. This is because T144 contains the phrase Fomu bannihuan 佛母般泥洹, but not Da’aidao 大愛道, while T145 contains all of the term Da’aidao 大愛道, Fomu 佛母, and bannihuan 般泥洹 (520). Consequently, Hayashiya claims that T144 is the anonymous Fomu bannihuan jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures, and T145 is the Da’aidao bannihuan jing in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. The Fomu bannihuan jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng must have been lost at an early stage. According to Hayashiya, any other ascriptions and identifications given by the catalogues are incorrect. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 907-910 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Taishō: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄: Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. 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. — 870-871 |
According to Sakaino, Sengyou listed the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145 twice, once ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 (no such ascription is carried by any such text in the present canon), with the alternate title Da’aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 (cf. T144), and again as an anonymous scripture in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯. Sakaino claims that the latter entry was a mistake. LDSBJ ascribes a single title, Fo mu bannihuan jing, to Juqu Jingsheng, and also to Bo Fazu 白法祖, with the alternate title Da’aidao bannihuan jing. [Sakaino stops here but he asserts elsewhere (551-552) that the ascription of 大愛道般泥洹經 (T144) to 白法祖 is groundless. Sakaino also rejects the ascription of T145 to Huijian 慧簡 as one of Fei’s baseless new ascriptions of titles taken from Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯 (546-548) ---AI.] 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. — 546-548 |
Sakaino claims that that there is not a single reliable ascription to Huijian 惠簡/慧簡, because all were the fabrications of Fei Changfang. Fei took 25 titles from CSZJJ (24 from 新集失譯錄, viz., 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and one from 新集疑經偽撰雜錄) and ascribed them to Huijian). This entry is associated with all texts ascribed to Huijian in the present T. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 93a8-9, 93b22 |
LDSBJ features one ascription this title to Juqu Jingsheng, citing CSZJJ; and another ascription to Huijian, with no particular source. This means that the ascription of T145 to Huijian in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 24b4, 13a12-15. |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, this title is listed as an anonymous translation in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 佛母般泥洹經一卷. Note, however, that elsewhere in CSZJJ the same title is ascribed to “Duke Anyang of the Juqu [= Juqu Jingsheng], nephew of the imposter King of Hexi” 偽河西王從弟沮渠安陽侯, with the further details that it was translated in 455 孝建二年, in the Upper Dinglin si定林上寺 at Mt. Zhong鍾山, and an alternate title is given: 一名大愛道般泥洹經. [No such title is ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in the present Taishō --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|