| Identifier | T0141 [T] |
| Title | 佛說阿遬達經 [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 | Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 [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 |
[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 |
|
|
No |
[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 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) 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 |
|
|
|
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. — 633-638 |
|
Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 added in LDSBJ are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single or several translators. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Guṇabhadra is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Guṇabhadra to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. According to Sakaino, Fei lists 78 titles as Guṇabhadra’s work (including the 13 already ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ). Among them, as many as 48 titles were actually taken from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄. (Sakaino claims that 13 titles ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ are the only reliable record of Guṇabhadra’s work.) To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists the groups of titles from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” that were newly ascribed to Guṇabhadra by Fei without any solid grounds (635-637). Thus, Sakaino demonstrates that Fei took titles from the certain groups in Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” and allocated them to Guṇabhadra (Sakaino implies clearly that the ascriptions of them to Guṇabhadra are baseless). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|