| Identifier | T0122 [T] |
| Title | 佛說波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 [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 | Faju 法炬 [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 |
[Mizuno 1989] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. "Kan'yaku Chū agon kyō to Zōichi agon kyō 漢訳『中阿含経』と『増一阿含経』." Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 18 (1989): 1-42[L]. Chinese translation: "Hanyi Zhong ahan jing yu Zengyi ahan jing 漢譯《中阿含經》與《増一阿含經》," in Shuiye Hongyuan [=Mizuno Kōgen ], Fojiao wenxian yanjiu: Shuiye Hongyuan zhuzuo xuanji (1) 佛教文獻研究‧水 野 弘 元 著 作 選 集( 一), translated by Xu Yangzhu 許洋主, 509-579. Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2003. — passim |
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva, and attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for the (largely) lost EĀ (arguments for the lost MĀ are treated in a separate entry). Records attesting to a possible second EĀ translation (hereafter "EĀ-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Saṅghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Saṅghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Saṅghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text. Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Saṅghadeva’s second translations. This judgement is based upon the contrast with another set of sūtras. Mizuno surveys the single sūtras in the MĀ section and EĀ section of the Taishō (T27-98 for MĀ and T126-151 for EĀ), and proposes that the following texts all share a uniform style that he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]: EĀ-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684. (Mizuno also regards the following texts as comprising "MĀ-alt", and evincing the same style: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.) Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.] Among the 20 EĀ-alt sūtras, 19 are recorded as anonymous in Sengyou’s own „Shiyi zajing lu” 失譯雜經錄in CSZJJ, while 1 was recorded in Dao’an’s “Angong guyijing lu” 安公古異經錄. Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taishō for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ. Next, Mizuno also examines the excerpts in the Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed to MĀ and EĀ by Baochang. Mizuno lists 15 from EĀ. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon, specifically T119, which is one of the EĀ-alt sūtras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SĀ excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the EĀ entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first EĀ translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. [A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Saṅghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EĀ-alt and MĀ-alt sūtras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
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). — 70, 345 n. 254 |
|
"Dao’an only speaks about four works translated in the period 290-360 by Faju 法炬, a monk of unknown origin, and about two others translated by Faju together with the śramaṇa Fali 法立.... Later bibliographies have made Faju...the target of...wild attributions: no less than 132 works figure under his name in the late sixth century [LDSBJ], which number is reduced to 40 in the somewhat more critical [KYL]" (70). [MR: In fact, the passage in CSZJJ referred to in Zürcher's note (345 n. 254) shows that Zürcher has made an error here; the two texts supposedly translated with Faju were *among* the four translated by Fali (右四部。凡十二卷。晉惠懷時。沙門法炬譯出。其法句喻福田二經。炬與沙門法立共譯出; T2145:55.9c19-10a3), reducing the total number of ascriptions supported by this evidence even further. The four texts listed are: 樓炭經 (prob. = *Lokasthāna[?] 大樓炭經 T23) The main significance of Zürcher's remark is negative---the remaining ascriptions to Faju and Fali in the modern (Taishō) canon should be regarded as weaker and more open to suspicion. This record lists all such texts: T33, T34, T39, T49, T55, T64, T65, T70, T111, T113, T119, T122, T133, T178, T215, T332, T500, T501, T502, T503, T508, T509, T695, T739. However, we should also note that Zürcher adds:] "Sengyou states that Fali made a great number of translations which were lost during the troubles of the yongjia era (307-313) before they had been copied and put into circulation, a remark which is repeated by Huijiao in his Gaoseng zhuan....It may...have happened that some works were rediscovered at a rather later date, but Sengyou's silence about Faju remains puzzling. Dao'an's catalouge, our invaluable guide for the early period, gives out around 300 AD; although Dao'an compiled it at Xiangyang in 374 and probably added new entries until his death in 385, he did not include any works translated after the end of the Western Jin." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 25a25 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T??? 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), and is further identified as an excerpt 抄 from an Āgama: 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經一卷(抄阿含[v.l. + 經 M]). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 734-740 |
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 anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 listed a Boyeni wang jing 波耶匿王經, with Bosini wang jing 波斯匿王經 and Bosini wang sang mu jiing 波斯匿王喪母經 as alternate titles. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya points out that it is clear that Boye~ 波耶 is a mistaken orthography for Bosi~ 波斯. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經, with Bosini wang sang mu jing 波斯匿王喪母經 as an alternate title. The title Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing already appears in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 of CSZJJ 出三藏記集 as an extant scripture, with a note that it is “an excerpt from an Āgama 阿含.” Hayashiya maintains that, since Fajing regarded the Bosini wang jing and the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as the same text, it is likely that Sengyou’s listing of the two as different texts was a mistake, due to the substantial difference between the two titles. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same as Fajing did, and listed the text in the group of independent alternate translations of Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含, which is included among duplicate Hīnayāna translations 小乗經重譯. Jingtai also listed the same, and stated that the text was three sheets in length. Thus, we can know that the text was extant at least down to the Tang period, since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively. However, LDSBJ regarded the Bosini wang sang mu jing and the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as different texts. Moreover, it listed the Bosini wang sang mu jing twice, with different ascriptions. Thus, the catalogue contains a Bosini wang sang mu jing and Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing ascribed to Faju 法炬, and one more Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. As for the ascription to Faju 法炬, LDSBJ suggests that it came from the "old catalogue" 舊錄 and the "separate catalogue" 別錄. However, Hayashiya points out that Fei Changfang 費長房 must have seen the content of the "old catalogue" only in CSZJJ, and CSZJJ does not rely on the "old catalogue" in ascribing texts even once. Therefore, Fei Changfang cannot have seen the ascription of the Bosini wang sang mu jing/Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing to Faju in the "old catalogue". In the case of the "separate catalogue", LDSBJ states that most of its ascriptions to Jingsheng are based on that catalogue. Nonetheless, Hayashiya points out that if the "separate catalogue" contained the same entries and ascriptions as LDSBJ, such entries would have been reflected on CSZJJ and Fajing, but this is not the case. Hence, there cannot have been any ascriptions of the text to either Faju or Jingsheng in the "separate catalogue". Thus, Hayashiya asserts that it must have been Fei himself who first listed those three titles separately, ascribing them to Faju or Jingsheng without support. Regarding DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, although it usually follows LDSBJ, in this case, it differs from it by listing only two of the three entries in LDSBJ, i.e. the two titles ascribed to Faju. DZKZM excised the supposed text ascribed to Jingsheng, and regarded only the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as extant. KYL listed the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing ascribed to Faju with Bosini wang sang mu jing as an alternate title, thus excising the ~sang mu jing translated by Faju as an independent text. However, the catalogue kept the Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Jingsheng, the title which DZKZM had excised. Hayashiya points out that, while the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing was known to exist under that title from the Sui period, the two Bosini wang sang mu jing ascribed to Faju and Jingsheng were “ghost scriptures” created by Fei Changfang, and hence the different inclusions and excision made by DZKZM and KYL are meaningless. Still, KYL recorded the length of the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing as three sheets. Hayashiya claims that since this scripture is said to be three sheets long by both Jingtai and KYL, it should be approximately two and a half registers long in the format of the Taishō. Then he points out that the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 (T122) ascribed to Faju has just that length. Hayashiya therefore asserts that this is the text listed in catalogues from the Sui period. He claims that, although the style of language in T122 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, it is highly doubtful that the text is the work of Faju. This is because, as mentioned above, Fei Changfang’s ascription to Faju is unreliable, and in fact many of other extant texts ascribed to Faju by Changfang are observed be the works of different translators. Hayashiya suggests that T122 may be the Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經 ascribed to Bo Yan 白延 listed by Sengyou in CSZJJ, because at the end of T122 the Buddha gives the text a similar name, Chu zaihuan jing 除災患經. Hayashiya states that he hopes to explore this possibility further when he has a chance to work more on CSZJJ. Hayashiya claims that there is no scripture that can be ascribed to Faju with confidence. Among the four titles that has been ascribed to him since CSZJJ, one is lost and the other three, supposed to be extant, have not been proven to be Faju’s work. In addition, as stated above, many of the texts ascribed to Faju by Fei have different styles, and so cannot be the works of Faju alone. Thus, Hayashiya states that he has not succeeded in identifying the exact style of language of Faju. Thus, he maintains that, although there may well be some scriptures that are indeed works of Faju, all the texts ascribed to him should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture until further progress is made in relevant fields. Hayashiya concludes that the Bosini wang jing in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures had the alternate titles Bosini wang sang mu jing and Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing, and that it should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Western Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since the determination of its ascription requires further research. The three titles listed in LDSBJ should be excised. So, too, the Bosini wang taihou beng chentu ben shen jing that Sengyou included in Dao'an's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 should also be excised, since it is merely a double listing of the Bosini wang jing. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 67b2, 93a7 |
The ascription of T122 to Faju found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. The title波斯匿王喪母經, which is sometimes given as an alternate title for the same text, is also ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng. 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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 152-159 |
|
Sakaino presents a list of 132 texts that LDSBJ newly ascribed to Faju, and points out that almost all of them (129 titles) were taken from the Sengyou’s “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 續 失譯錄 in CSZJJ (one was taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄). Sakaino also demonstrates that in assigning these new ascriptions, Fei arbitrarily took titles in groups, holus-bolus, from certain concentrated sections of Sengyou’s list. This is part of a broader pattern that Sakaino studies at several points in his book (see esp. 80-86), in which he identifies such group-wise reassignment of texts from Sengyou’s anonymous lists to single translators as characteristic of Fei Changfang’s working pattern. He points out that Sengyou’s list was organised by topic, as it could be inferred from the titles of texts, and not by translator (as it could not be, since Sengyou was explicitly stating that he did not know who the translator was); this makes it all the more improbable that texts due to single translators would be clustered in the list in the manner required by Fei’s re-ascriptions. In Faju’s case, for instance, this has the absurd consequence of making him appear to be a specialist in translations of texts that happen to have the word bhikṣu 比丘 in the title. 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 |
[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 Boyeni wang jing 波[斯 SYM]耶匿王經is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云波[耶 SYM]斯匿王經或云波斯匿王喪母經; 17b2. 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 considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (However, cf. T122.) Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Mizuno 1989] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. "Kan'yaku Chū agon kyō to Zōichi agon kyō 漢訳『中阿含経』と『増一阿含経』." Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 18 (1989): 1-42[L]. Chinese translation: "Hanyi Zhong ahan jing yu Zengyi ahan jing 漢譯《中阿含經》與《増一阿含經》," in Shuiye Hongyuan [=Mizuno Kōgen ], Fojiao wenxian yanjiu: Shuiye Hongyuan zhuzuo xuanji (1) 佛教文獻研究‧水 野 弘 元 著 作 選 集( 一), translated by Xu Yangzhu 許洋主, 509-579. Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2003. |
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that EĀ ws translated twice (see separate CBC@ entry), and proposes that vestiges of the lost, second translation (which he ascribes to *Dharmanandin/Zhu Fonian) survive as a group of individual sūtras in the Taishō: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684. This entry lists those texts as a group. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|