| Identifier | T0129 [T] |
| Title | 佛說三摩竭經 [T] |
| Date | 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhu Lüyan, 竺律炎 [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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 865-873, 959 |
須摩提女經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records this title 須摩提女經 as an alternate title of三摩竭經 translated by 竺律炎, along with other alternate titles, 忿惒檀王經 and 難國王經. However, since 忿惒檀王經 is listed separately in Dao’an’s list, so Dao’an must have recorded the same text twice if 忿惒檀王經 were an alternate name for三摩竭經. This is highly unlikely, Hayashiya maintains. Sengyou lists 三摩竭經 and 難國王經 separately as well in 失譯雑經錄, showing that he regarded all of the three titles refer to different texts. However, Sengyou states that the difference between 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 is minor. Hayashiya thinks that 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 are variations of the same text, only with minor differences that were made during the process of transmission. He further points out that the content of the surviving 三摩竭經 T129 suggests that the text could have been called 難國王經as well. 難國王經 was listed as an unseen text by Sengyou, so it is plausible that 難國王經 was indeed an alternate title of 三摩竭經. Thus, as far as 三摩竭經, 忿惒檀王經 and 難國王經 are concerned, Fajing’s view that they are alternate titles of the same text appears to be correct. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is not right in regarding 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 as the same text. Hyashiya shows three reasons for claiming so. Firstly, these two texts are shown clearly as different by Dao’an. Secondly, since all of 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 were extant in Sengyo’s time, so if 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 could really have been considered as the same text, Sengyou would have stated that there were only minor differences between the two texts, like he did in the case of 三摩竭經. Thirdly, the surviving 須摩提女經 T128 and 三摩竭經T129 are, although both must have been composed in the the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, clearly different in content. For these reasons, Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was wrong in considering 須摩提女經 and 忿惒檀王經 as the same text. Hayashiya claims that, although it may appear odd that such a mistake as this can occur even in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which was produced through discussions by twenty excellent scholars 大徳. He thinks that the most plausible cause of the confusion is the woman of 給孤獨長者: Since both of the stories of 須摩提女經and 三摩竭經 are about the same woman, if merely the explanation of the content of the two texts was provided by the scholars who had directly seen them, the two could have been easily misunderstood to be the same during discussions among the group of scholars. There are two 須摩提女經 in Taishō, the one came from the 麗 book 麗本 and the other from the 明 book 明本. They are clearly different: The latter is almost double in length of the former. The latter contains many words that are not in the former, although the two share the significant amount of vocabularies. As such, these two text must have been composed by different translators using different original texts. Judging from the vocabularies, both of them are old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Thus, although 須摩提女經 is recorded as a single text ever since in CSZJJ 出三藏記集, there are actually two 須摩提女經s. This leads to the question that which one is the one listed in Dao’an’s list. Hayashiya argues that Dao’an referred to the 麗本 version. This is because the 麗本 version uses 須摩提 all the way through, while the 明本 version mostly uses the word 修摩提 instead of 須摩提. In any case, adding to the fact that 須摩提女經 is a different text from 三摩竭經, there are two 須摩提女經s, with only one of the two listed in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. However, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and regarded 須摩提女經 and 三摩竭經 as the same text. Since Jingtai shows the length of the text as eight sheets 紙 long, the listed text at the time of Jingtai was三摩竭經, not 須摩提女經, because both versions of須摩提女經s are not of that length. Hence, there was no record of 須摩提女經 in those catalogues that confuse the text with 三摩竭經 . LDSBJ 三寶記 shows 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 as different texts. 須摩提女經 is listed as Zhi Qian’s translation, 三摩竭經 as 竺律炎’s, and 忿惒檀王經 as 京聲’s. (For the details of entries of 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 in LDSBJ, Hayashiya refers to his own article about 忿惒檀王經 in Hayashiya 1941, the present source.) DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ’s ascription of the three texts. However, the text of 須摩提女經 had been found at the time of DZKZM, as the catalogue shows the title with its length, viz., seven sheets long. This length is about six rows 段 in Taishō. The 麗本 version is of about that length, so that should be the one shown in DZKZM. KYL 開元錄 also listed 須摩提女經, 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 separately, with the same ascription as LDSBJ and DZKZM. 三摩竭經 and 忿惒檀王經 should be regarded as the same text, so the entry of 忿惒檀王經 was redundant. KYL listed 須摩提女經 as translated by Zhi Qian, but neither of KYL and LDSBJ shows any support for that, and the vocabulary and tone of the two surviving 須摩提女經s are different from those of Zhi Qian’s. Hence, 須摩提女經 (presumably the麗本 version of it) should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or more plausibly, of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Also, the other version of 須摩提女經, which was not listed either by Dao’an or Sengyou, should be listed separately as an anonymous scripture of the same period Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 26c15 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T129 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): 三摩竭經一卷(與分惒檀王經大同小異). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 57a11, 36a5 |
T129 is ascribed to Zhu Lüyan by LDSBJ, referring to the Shixing lu. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 60c6 |
In LDSBJ, T129 is listed among Wei-Wu anonymous texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 129b10 |
This title is treated by Fajing as an “alternate translation of a separate chapter from the *Ekottarikāgama” 增一阿含別品異譯, with an ascription in an interlinear note to “Zhu Lütouyan” 竺律頭炎 (sic!). The interlinear note also gives several alternate titles: 三摩竭經一卷(一名須摩提女經一名難國王經一名忿惒檀王經)(吳世竺律頭炎譯). [Note: This title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ, so this should mean that Fajing is the first place we seen the ascription to Zhu Lüyan --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 34a7 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, a title possibly to be identified with T129 is regarded as a missing 闕 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), in the section listing missing texts (beginning at 32a1): 摩竭王經一卷(舊錄云摩竭國王經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 707-714 |
|
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. He deals with sixteen out of twenty-one such ascriptions, since the other five are discussed elsewhere (and established as incorrect). The sixteen titles are as follows (as shown in Dao'an's list, with the title in LDSBJ in brackets when it differs from Dao’an). Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 (The other five titles that LDSBJ ascribe to Jingsheng are: Pusa Shi jing 菩薩誓經, Shengsi bianshi jing 生死変識經, Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經, Fanmo huang jing 梵摩皇經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經.) Hayashiya maintains that, unless Fei Changfang 費長房 had reliable sources, it is difficult to believe that he found as many as twenty-one texts to be the works of Jingsheng without directly examining their contents, when Dao’an could not give specific ascriptions for the same texts. However, Fei’s source, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of the [Liu] Song canon” 宋時衆經別錄, which he briefly mentions at the end of the list of texts ascribed to Jingsheng, is unlikely to have given such ascriptions, for the following reasons: 1) if it had, those ascriptions should have been reflected in CSZJJ; and 2) since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources of Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed as many as twenty-one texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing. Hayashiya adds that the unreliability of Fei’s ascriptions to Jingsheng is also shown in the fact that he sometimes even cites the same “separate catalogue” as the source of different ascriptions of the same text, e.g., of the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 to Jingsheng and to Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that any texts included in Dao’an’s catalogue should not be works of Jingsheng, who was active under the Song 宋. He also rejects the possibility that the titles in LDSBJ refer to texts different from those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, on the grounds that no catalogues preceding LDSBJ even suggested the existence of such texts. Next, Hayashiya discusses the language and style of those scriptures. He lists eleven extant texts out of the sixteen titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, and compares them with the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經, which has been established as the work of Jingsheng since CSZJJ. Hayashiya points out that, while the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing starts with 如是我聞 and uses vocabulary and terminology newer than that of the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, all of the eleven texts dubiously ascribed to Jingsheng start with 聞如是 and use vocabulary much older than that of the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing. Moreover, there are considerable discrepancies between the styles of these texts. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the eleven texts in question are not the works of Jingsheng. They should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Jingsheng as follows: 1. Jingsheng’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; Hayashiya adds that reliable ascriptions and dates of scriptures should be found by studying catalogues that were compiled honestly, not by believing what LDSBJ states. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
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 |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Fenhetan wang jing 分惒檀王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a22. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 T129, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|