Text: T0143; 玉耶經; Qi fu jing 七婦經 ; Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經


Identifier T0143 [T]
Title 玉耶經 [T]
Date W. Jin 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941]
Unspecified Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941]
Translator 譯 Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 (*Dharmaratna?) [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


[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



[Bagchi 1927]  Bagchi, Prabodh Chandra. Le canon bouddhique en Chine: Les traducteurs et les traductions. Sino-Indica: Publications de l’Université de Calcutta, Tome 1er. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927. — 322-334

Bagchi notes that CSZJJ only listed two works under the name of Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 [the two works in question are: 三十七品經; 賢劫千佛名經; see T2145:55.10b17-20 [note, however, that CSZJJ also preserves a preface to a third text, entitled 大比丘二百六十戒三部合異, by Tanwulan himself]. Bagchi suggests that this circumstance is not odd, because Sengyou was working in the South, and this meant that his information was always incomplete. This makes it all the more striking, however, that LDSBJ and catalogues following attributed a huge number of works to Tanwulan, e.g. 110 in LDSBJ. Zhisheng (KYL) only speaks of 61 works, of which he stated that 48 of those works were either "fake" or extracts from longer works. In Bagchi's individualised list of texts, those regarded as suspect by Zhisheng are placed in square brackets.

Zhisheng's suspicions extended to one of the works listed by Sengyou, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, which he took to be an extract from a Vinaya. The [Da biqiu] erbailiushi jie san bu he yi [大比丘]二百六十戒三部合異 was lost by the time of Zhisheng (Bagchi 323). Zhisheng also remarked of the 賢劫千佛名經 that it appeared to be the work of someone other than Tanwulan (Bagchi 324).

[Note that this means, in fact, that none of the works ascribed to Tanwulan by Sengyou was extant in Zhisheng's time, and regarded by him as beyond suspicion---which might make us question the benchmark against which Zhisheng arrived at judgements about the authenticity of the other works he did admit as genuine, as noted below. In addition, none of these three works is now extant. This means that Sengyou is silent on ALL extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan, which in and of itself, and regardless of other mitigating factors, warrants caution in accepting all of those ascriptions---MR]

The extant texts NOT regarded as suspect by Zhisheng [which would perhaps, on these grounds, be prima facae among the most potentially reliable ascriptions---MR] are: Śrāmaṇyaphala 寂志果經 T22; 鐵城泥犁經 T42; 阿耨風經 T58; Pravāraṇa-sūtra 新歳經 T62; 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 T71; 泥犁經 T86; 水沫所漂經 T106; 戒德香經 T116; 四泥犁經 T139; 玉耶經 T143; 國王不梨先泥十夢經 T148; 大魚事經 T216; 迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T393; 阿難七夢經 T494; 比丘聽施經 T504; 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 T510; 呵鵰阿那鋡經T538; 五苦章句經 T741; 自愛經 T742; 忠心經 T743; 見正經 T796; 陀鄰尼鉢經 T1352; 檀特羅麻油述經 T1391; 摩尼羅亶經 T1393.

The following work is not mentioned in KYL, even though it is extant (Bagchi 333): 元師颰所說神咒經 T1378a. The following works are mentioned as lost in KYL, even though they are extant (Bagchi 333): 咒時氣病經 T1326 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō]; 咒齒經 T1327; 咒目經 T1328 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō]; and 咒小兒經 T1329 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō].

[Note: With the exception of T1326, T1328 and T1329, which carry no ascription in the Taishō, the above list coincides perfectly with the Taishō ascriptions to Tanwulan, showing that the Taishō version of Tanwulan's corpus is entirely due to Zhisheng---MR.]

Entry author: Michael Radich



[Hayashiya 1941]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 660-668

Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles found in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. He focuses on ten out of fourteen such ascriptions, since the other four are discussed elsewhere (where Hayashiya argues that they are incorrect). The titles of the ten texts in LDSBJ are as follows (Taishō title, if it differs, is noted separately; followed by Dao’an’s title; alternate titles and notes omitted for simplicity):

Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing 阿難多洹羅云母經 [Luoyun mu jing 羅云母經]
Zhengjian jing 見正經 (T796) [Shengsi bianhua jing 生死變化經)]
Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不梨先泥十夢經 (T148) [Shi meng jing 十夢經]
Zi’ai jing 自愛經 (T742) [Zi’ai buzi’ai jing 自愛不自愛經]
Yuye jing 玉耶經 (T143) [Qi fu jing 七婦經]
Xin sui jing 新歳經 (T62) [Xin sui jing 新歳經]
Qi meng jing 七夢經 (Anan qi meng jing 阿難七夢經 T494) [Anan ba meng jing 阿難八夢經]
Wu ku jing 五苦經 T741 [Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經]
Hediao anahan jing 荷鵰阿那含經 (Hediao anahan jing 呵雕阿那鋡經 T538) [Hediao anahan jing 呵調阿那含經]
Jie de jing 戒徳經 (Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經 T116) [Jie de xiang jing 戒徳香經]

The other four titles discussed by Hayashiya elsewhere in the same work (Kyōroku kenkyū) are: Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經, Anan nian Mile jing 阿難念彌勒經, and Pinsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經. Among these four, Hayashiya points out that the Sanshiqi pin jing (one of four texts referred to by the same title ) was composed 撰述 by Tanwulan, not translated by him (821-828). The other three are “ghost scriptures,” fabricated by Fei Changfang 費長房 to add to existing entries with the same or similar titles. Hayashiya states that those four cases give us a reason to suspect the validity of LDSBJ’s record of the other ten titles.

Hayashiya point out that, first, since Dao’an’s catalogue generally collects translated scriptures of or before the W. Jin 西晋 period, any texts included in the catalogue should not be works of Tanwulan, who flourished during the E. Jin 東晋. Still, he claims that there may be some exceptional cases, so it is better to examine each case separately, firstly by investigating the grounds for those ascriptions, and secondly by evaluating the writing style of language of those scriptures.

Hayashiya also asserts that Fei Changfang does not show any convincing grounds for those ascriptions to Tanwulan. Hayashiya makes this point by rejecting two sources that Fei mentions in LDSBJ. First, LDSBJ cites the “old catalogue” 舊錄 as the source of the ascription of four of the ten titles, namely Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing, Zi’ai jing, Qi meng jing, and Hediao anahan jing. However, Hayashiya points out that the “old catalogue” focuses on showing the titles of scriptures and the sources of their alternative titles, so it should not have anything to do with ascriptions to Tanwulan. Second, according to Hayashiya, Fei suggests that most of the ascriptions to Tanwulan are based on the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of Song scriptures” 宋時衆經別錄. Hayashiya maintains that this claim of Fei's is untrue for the following three reasons: 1) Like the old catalogue, the “separate catalogue” does not aim to provide ascriptions; 2) Since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources for Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed more than one hundred texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing; and 3) Although Sengyou must have seen the “separate catalogue”, he regarded only two titles, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經, as the work of Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that all the ascriptions to Tanwulan shown in LDSBJ are not based on reliable sources, except for the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經.

Hayashiya next moves on to the evaluation of the writing style of these scriptures. Luckily, nine out of the ten scriptures ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ are extant (as listed above). The Taishō ascribes all of those nine texts to Tanwulan, since it follows KYL in principle, which in turn relies very often on LDSBJ. Hayashiya maintains that the nine texts in the Taishō are the same as those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and in LDSBJ.

Hayashiya admits that, judging from their style, all of these nine texts must have been produced at or before the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, so that in terms of period, it is not impossible that they are the work of Tanwulan. However, Hayashiya argues that there is no uniform style among the nine texts. He also points out that, among other extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ, there are diverse styles, such as that of the Latter Han 後漢 period, or that later than the Song and Qi 宋齋 periods, and hence there is no text among them that can be reliably ascribed to Tanwulan (he refers to his own “Dommuran yakkyō no kenkyū 竺無蘭譯經の研究” for detailed discussions about each title). Hayashiya conjectures that some of the double ascriptions that Changfang gives to some of those titles ascribed to Tanwulan may be part of his efforts to make less noticeable the inconsistency among the styles of the texts. Furthermore, Hayashiya claims that the only texts that are established as Tanwulan’s work, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing, are not extant (the extant Sanshiqi pin jing is actually the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, and the extant Xianjie qian Fo jing is much newer than it should be, as it is included in the Liang catalogue 梁錄 of the Taishō ). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no way to determine which texts are the work of Tanwulan based on style and language, and hence it is not certain if any genuine Tanwulan work is extant.

Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan as follows:

1. Tanwulan’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue;
2. The sources that Fei mentions could not have contained the information that he says he saw;
3. There is no extant work by Tanwulan upon the basis of which we could determine which texts should be ascribed to him;
4. There are titles ascribed to Tanwulan that are established as incorrect for simple reasons, such as the titles being “ghost scriptures.”

Hayashiya adds that he does not deal with the Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing, the only lost text among the ten titles, because these general considerations already give us good reasons to safely reject the ascription.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki



[Hayashiya 1941]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 685-692

Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows:

A 七婦經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as the Qi fu jing in one juan 七婦經一巻. The following two alternate translations of this text existed at the time of Sengyou: the Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經 (with an alternate title Yuye jing 玉瑘經), listed next to the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 in the category of extant texts in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. All of these texts were extant at that time.

However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes only two of those three texts, listing the Yuye jing (with the Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing 長者詣佛説子婦不恭敬經 and the Qi fu jing) and Asuda jing. Fajing regarded "Qi fu jing" as just an alternate title of the Yuye jing. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, followed Fajing in listing only two of the three, viz., the Asuda jing and the Yuye jing (with the Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu bu gongjing jing and the Qi fu jing) in the category of repeat Hīnayāna translations 小乗經重譯經. Based on this, Hayashiya maintains that only the Asuda jing and the Yuye jing were extant in the Sui period. He also claims that the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures was regarded as an alternate title of the Yuye jing, since the Yuye jing described seven types of women (七婦) and was sometimes called the Qi fu jing. [Hayashiya seems to think, without clearly saying so, that the Yuye nü jing in Dao’an’s catalogue became lost (and was later refound, see below), and instead, the Qi fu jing was called Yuye nü jing by Fajing and other catalogues.]

Jingtai records the same two titles, Asuda jing and Yuye jing, with lengths of two sheets and four sheets respectively. DTNDL 内典錄 records the same titles with the same lengths in its catalogue of the extant canon.

It was LDSBJ that first ascribed the Yuye jing to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the Asuda jing to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. Following LDSBJ, KYL lists the Yuye jing (with the alternate title Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu wu jing jing 長者詣佛説子婦無敬經) ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan, and the Asuda jing ascribed to Guṇabhadra, as well as the Yuye nü jing (with the alternate title Yuye jing) and the Qi fu jing from Dao’an’s catalogue as anonymous scriptures. The Qi fu jing is regarded as lost, the other three extant. Zhisheng 智昇 states that there are three extant alternate translations, because the Yuye jing 玉耶經 had been was found by his time.

KYL lists the lengths of the three texts in its catalogue of the extant canon as follows:

Yuye nü jing (Yuye jing): three sheets
Yuye jing (Zhangzhe yi Fo shuo zi fu wu jing jing, Yuye nü jing): five sheets
Asuda jing: two sheets.

Hayashiya points out that the Yuye nü jing in three sheets is added to the Asuda jing and Yuye jing included in the catalogues prior to LDSBJ (although KYL records the length of the Yuye jing as five sheets, instead of the four sheets stated by Jingtai).

There are also three alternate translations of the Qi fu jing in the Taishō, which are entitled Asuda jing 阿遬達經 T141, Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經 T142, and Yuye jing 玉耶經 T143. Among these, the Taishō includes two versions of the Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經, one checked against the Song and the Yuan editions, and the other against the Ming edition. However, Hayashiya disregards the latter because it contains too many mistakes and too often confuses the Yuye nü jing with the Yuye jing.

Among these three texts (T141, T142, T143) in the Taishō, Hayashiya maintains that T141 is the text that was listed in the aforegoing catalogues as Asuda jing, because T141 is about two sheets in length, and the word Asuda 阿遬達 is so distinct that the two titles using it should refer to the same text.

As for T142 and T143, Hayashiya compares the style and contents of the two and points out that they are translations of very similar original texts, and the translators of one must have referred to the other in the course of translation. However, he emphasizes that they are different translations, not the same version with variants in transmission. As support for this claim, he lists the following differences between the two texts:

(玉耶女經 T142) (玉耶經 T143)
一者生時父母不憙 一者初生墮地父母不喜
二者養育無味 二者養育視無滋味
三者常憂嫁娶失禮 三者女人心常畏入
四者處々畏入 四者父母恒憂嫁娶
五者與父母別離 五者與父母生相離別
六者倚他門戸 六者常畏夫婿視其顔色
七者懐姙甚難 七者懐姙產生甚難
八者產生時難 八者女人小爲父母所撿錄
九者常畏夫主 九者中爲夫婿所制
十者常不得自在 十者年老爲兒孫所呵

Hayashiya points out that, for example, a set of three zhang 鄣 are shown in T142 but not in T143, while the descriptions of the “ten evils” 十惡 in the two are fairly different in wording. Based on such differences, Hayashiya asserts that T142 and T143 cannot be two variant versions of the same translation.

The Taishō ascribes T141 to Guṇabhadra and T143 to Tanwulan, following KYL, which is influenced by LDSBJ (T142 is treated as anonymous). However, Hayashiya claims that the vocabulary used by T141, T142, and T143 indicates that all three texts must have been produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Therefore, none of them can be the work of Guṇabhadra or Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that LDSBJ does not show any grounds for those ascriptions.

This being the case, Sengyou must be right in listing the Yuye nü jing 玉耶女經 and the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 in his own catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, regarding all of them as extant. Hence, if several catalogues, including Fajing and Yancong, regard the Yuye nü jing and Qi fu jing as the same text, it must be a mere result of the fact that only two of the three alternate translations were extant in their time. As it is clear that the third translation is extant today, we should consider the Qi fu jing as an independent text, disregarding the identification made by Fajing, Yancong, etc. Given that the Qi fu jing in Dao'an's catalogue is still extant, it must be either T142 or T143. Hayashiya maintains that T143 is the Qi fu jing, because it contains an explanation of “seven [types of] women” 七婦, while T142 does not.

Accordingly, Hayashiya points out that, although KYL is right in listing 七婦經 again, it is incorrect in classifying it as a lost scripture, while assuming wrongly that the re-discovered text was the Yuye jing translated by Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the Qi fu jing of Dao’an’s catalogue (viz. T143), as well as T141 and T142, are all extant anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin period.

(Hayashiya adds that the original title of the Asuda jing is probably *Aśokadatta Sūtra, and if so the text might have some connection with the Wuyoushi jing 無憂施經. He states that he will deal with this topic when he examines the Asuda jing 阿遬達經 further sometime in the future.)

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki



[Lo 2005]  Lo, Yuet Keung. “Recovering a Buddhist Voice on Daughters-in-Law: The Yuyenü jing.” History of Religions 44, no. 4 (2005): 318-350.

Lo studies various alternate versions of this sūtra (T141, T142a, T142b, T143, EĀ 51.9), which, under various titles, gives a teaching on proper behaviour for daughters-in-law. Lo himself does not doubt or challenge the ascription of any of the four extant versions of the text (or five, allowing for the fact that T142 appears in two alternate versions in T, T142a and T142b). However, he does (somewhat confusingly) suggest that it may have been adapted to the demands of Confucian values, which would seem to suggest at least some degree of composition or modification in China.

Lo also notes several features of these texts that might lead us, independent of his analysis, to wonder if it is in fact a translation, or whether the received attributions are correct: 1) It exists in quite a number of versions, but those versions are all supposed to have been produced in a fairly short period; 2) Some versions are anonymous (T142a, T142b) or attributed to obscure translators (Tanwulan 曇無蘭, T143) (T141 is ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅); 3) Dao'an lists only two possibly related titles, 玉耶女經 and 玉瑘經 [but he in fact treats both as alternate titles for a single text, a fact which Lo overlooks --- MR], and regards both as anonymous; 4) Sengyou's CSZJJ does not add any further information (it lists no additional versions, nor provides attributions); 5) there is "nothing particularly Buddhist" about the text (342); 6) the text also contains odd items of realia and diction, such as "silk and hemp" 絲...麻 , a transmigrating "spirit" 魂神, and "nine degrees of kin" 九族.

[Lo himself does not pursue the question of the treatment of these titles in the catalogues beyond CSZJJ. Fajing lists two texts, the 玉耶經, for which he gives the alternate titles 長者詣佛說子婦不恭敬經 and 七婦經, and the 阿漱達經, and regards both as anonymous, T2146 (LV) 133b6-7. Yancong's information is identical, T2147 (LV) 160a15-16; as is Jingtai's, T2148 (LV) 194c3-4. Thus, LDSBJ is the first to ascribe the text Dao'an and Sengyou thought anonymous to Tanwulan, 玉耶經/玉耶女經, T2034 (XLIX) 69b11; but his ruzanglu inconsistently lists one of these titles, 玉耶經, as anonymous, and provides the alternate titles 長者詣佛說子婦不恭敬經 and 七婦經, 118c9. DTNDL repeats the ascription to Tanwulan, and ascribes a 玉耶經/長者詣佛說子婦無敬經/七婦經 AND a 阿遬達經 to Buddhabhadra and Faxian, T2149 (LV) 298b11-12. The situation is therefore something of a hopeless mess, but there is no reason to believe more than one version of the text was known down to Sengyou, nor that more than two versions were known even to Fei Zhangfang --- MR.]

Lo tabulates differences between different versions of the text (327) and gives a translation of T142b at the end of his article (347-350).

Entry author: Michael Radich



[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. — 353-393

Saitō notes that T142b and T143 are part of a larger group of five related texts in T, the others being T141, T142a and EĀ 51.9 . He also notes that a partial parallel is known in Pali, the Bhariyā-sutta AN 7.63. However, he argues that T142b and T143 are particularly closely related, at least in their use of rhyme, and more generally, in the portion of the text in which the Buddha expounds upon virtuous and vicious women. This relation is exemplified by the rare phrase 萬分之後 (otherwise only in T154, T729; the phrase 何益萬分, which Saitō sees as related, appears in T520, T556 [also T784 --- MR]).

Dao'an lists as anonymous a title 玉耶女經/玉耶經, corresponding to T142(a or b) or T143. It is not until KYL that a date was suggested for the work. The ascription of T143 to Tanwulan is problematic, because CSZJJ only ascribes two texts to him, but LDSBJ suddenly ascribes around 110 works.

There are two rhymed portions in these texts, both in padas of four syllables. 1) The Buddha explains seven types of women 七輩婦; 2) the Buddha categorises these seven types into good and bad 善婦悪婦. In Pali AN 7.63, (1) is rhymed, but (2) is absent, and may have been added to the Chinese by the translators.

In (1), the explanation of four of seven categories is end-rhymed. Saitō suggests that this material was originally presented as verse, but got reformatted as prose through an error of transmission.

In (2), Saitō found loose rhymes by dividing a number of eight-character lines in the texts into two four-character lines. The rhyme is better here than in (1).

The rhyme in T142b is better than in T143. On this basis, Saitō suggets that T142b may be later. However, T143 (but not T142b) quotes the Zuo zhuan 春秋左氏伝 (on this point, Saitō cites 一柳和成), which may mean that T143 was created on the basis of some other pre-existing text, in which case T142b is a natural candidate. Saitō concludes that the chonological relation between the two texts is undetermined.

Saitō states that rhyme embedded in prose in this manner seems to be rare, and aside from the present two texts, he has only otherwise discovered it in T588.

Saitō suggests that end-rhymes may have been characteristic of instructional literature for women, and that this may have been a device to suit the literature to memorization and recitation. In discussing this possibility, he compares T142b/T143 to secular literature, and notes similarities with the Nü cheng 女誠 by Cao Dajia 曹大家 (Ban Zhao 班昭) of the Latter Han , and analyses rhyme in a number of other 女訓書 (380-384) and the Analects for Women (Nü lunyu) 女論語 of the Tang. He also notes that in 30 scriptures in the Taishō in which the Buddha speaks to a woman or the main topic is women, five have rhymed verse: T553 ("An Shigao"), T557 ("Zhi Qian", as cited in JYLX T2121), T558 ("Dharmarakṣa"), T572 (anon., Liang 涼), and T580 (anon., Liang 涼).

Saitō also suggests that of these texts, T143 was most commonly known under the Tang period, as it was quoted in Huizhao's 慧沼 Quan fa putixin ji 勸發菩提心集 T. 1862 , and some terms in it are glossed in works like the Yiqie jing yin yi.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki



[CSZJJ]  Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145.
[Dao'an catalogue]  Dao'an 道安. Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄.
[Hayashiya 1945]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 463

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 Qi fu jing 七婦經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17c10. 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 Yuye jing 玉耶經 T143, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭.

Entry author: Merijn ter Haar