| Identifier | T0148 [T] |
| Title | 國王不梨先泥十夢經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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. — 673-683 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Shi meng jing 十夢經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in 1 juan, with the alternate titles Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經, Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經, and Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing 國王不黎先泥十夢經, and also with the comment “Lord [Dao] An says that this is taken from the Abhidharma” 安公云出阿毘曇. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou.. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing~不離先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang shi meng jing 國王十夢經 in the category of independent alternate translations 別品異譯 of the *Ekottarikāgama 增一阿含. Yancong (仁壽録), which is a catalogue of the extant canon of the Sui 隋 period, records the same as Fajing. Thus, a text entitled Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing was certainly extant in the Sui period. Jingtai includes, also in the category of independent alternate translations of the *Ekottarikāgama, Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不黎先尼~ with the alternate title Guowang qi meng jing 國王七夢經, with a length of five sheets. Hayashiya points out that qi meng 七夢 in Guowang qi meng jing must be a scribal error for shi meng 十夢. DTNDL 内典錄 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 record the same. KYL lists the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing from Dao’an’s catalogue with the alternates titles Shi meng Shewei guowang shi meng jing 十夢經舎衞國王十夢經, and Bosini wang shi meng jing 波斯匿王十夢經, separately from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing ~不犁先尼~ that it ascribes to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya maintains that these two entries do not appear to be a simple case of repeat listing, because Zhisheng 智昇 also shows the lengths of the two titles, five sheets for the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing and four sheets for the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jin, and he clearly states that the two texts are alternate translations of the same text 同本異譯. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing must have been found by the time of KYL, and that it is apparently a different text from the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing listed in the foregoing catalogues, since Fajing and Zhisheng judged that the new text was the Shi meng ming 十夢經 of Dao’an’s catalogue. In the Taishō, there exist the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 T146 categorized as anonymous, the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舎衞國王十夢經 T147 with the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄, and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不犁先泥十夢經 T148 ascribed to Tanwulan. Hayashiya claims that, of these three, T148 must be the Guowang Bulixianni shimeng jing that existed since the Sui period, because the text refers to King Prasenajit 波斯匿王 as Bulixianni 不梨先泥, a transcription of the original word, Prasenajit/Pasenadi, and the text is just about four registers long, which is about five sheets, the length shown in Jingtai. Hayashiya also points out that the Taishō adds the comment “contained in the Western Jin catalogue” 附西晋錄 to T147 because the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions added the same to the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing [although the Taishō chose a different title to which to append this comment]. However, T147 is not included in any of the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. Hayashiya then claims that the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing 舎衞國王夢見十事經 included in KYL is T146, because of T146 and T147, T147 is only two and a half registers long, while KYL records the length of the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing as four sheets. This shows that, Hayashiya points out, T147 was rediscovered at some point after KYL. The existence of the three texts suggests the possibility that the titles that Sengyou thought referred to one and the same text － Shewei guowang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing －were actually the titles of three different texts. Thus, Hayashiya stated, it is necessary to examine the style and content of each of the three extant texts to see if they are genuinely different. He asserts that all of them clearly show the characteristics of the W. Jin period or earlier. Yet, he claims that it is not easy to determine whether those texts were different from the outset, or are the variations of the same text, as both possibilities are supported by some evidence. The following factors suggest that the three texts are different: lengths; considerable differences in detail (the reason, according to Hayashiya, that the Korean edition states that T147 and T148 are different texts). However, Hayashiya argues that T146, T147, and T148 are fundamentally the same text, and differences between them arose in the transmission processes. He points out as a clue the comment on the Shi meng jing 十夢經 in Sengyou mentioned above, according to which Dao'an held that the text was excerpted from the Abhidharma 安公云出阿毘曇. Although the text has been commonly classified as an independent alternate translation of the *Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya claims that, since Dao’an was involved in the translation work of the *Ekottarikāgama, his word 出阿毘曇 indicates that the Shi meng jing 十夢經 that Dao’an saw was different from the *Ekottarikāgama, if similar to some extent. Based on this assumption, Hayashiya compares the three texts and the corresponding part of the *Ekottarikāgama in detail. Then, he points out that: 1) The structure of the story differs considerably between the *Ekottarikāgama and the three texts; 2) When there is some sentence/passage in any of the three texts that seems to have been added afterwards, in most cases it is taken from the *Ekottarikāgama; and 3) the vocabulary of these three texts and the *Ekottarikāgama are largely similar. Accordingly, he claims that the three texts are fundamentally the same as each other, while differing from the *Ekottarikāgama. Based on those observations, Hayashiya argues for the following scenario: the Shi meng jing 十夢經 was translated before the *Ekottarikāgama and was referred to in the translation process of the *Ekottarikāgama; during oral transmission, parts of the Shi meng jing 十夢經 were changed so much that correction and supplementation was required when the text was transcribed; the *Ekottarikāgama was used as an important source for those works due to the similarity of the content; since the transcribing work was done separately in different places, perhaps due to the political condition of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, the three texts were produced, differing considerably in length and wording. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T146, T147, and T148 are the results of different modifications to the Shi meng jing, with reference to the *Ekottarikāgama. Although none of these texts preserves the original Shi meng jing, Hayashiya thinks that T147 is likely to be closest to it. He also points out that the T148 is quoted in its entirety in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which shows that the text was already in its present form by the Liang 梁 period. Given the above scenario , Sengyou was indeed right in treating Shewei Guowang shi meng jing, Bosini wang shi meng jing, Shewei guowang mengjian shi meng jing, and Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing as alternate titles of the Shi meng jing, rather than the titles of different texts. The ascription of T148 to Tanwulan, seen in KYL and the Taishō, was first given by LDSBJ. Hayashiya points out that this ascription cannot be correct, because any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been translated by Tanwulan, and because the style of the three texts in the Taishō is that of the W. Jin. Thus, the ascription to Tanwulan should be excised. Hayashiya adds that KYL is correct in including the Shewei guowang mengjian shi shi jing (Shi meng jing) 舎衞國王夢見十事經（十夢經）from Dao’an’s catalogue, but incorrect in following LDSBJ by ascribing T148 to Tanwulan. Hayashiya ends by stating that the Shi meng jing in Dao’an’s catalogue should be listed again, while excising the ascription to Tanwulan. (In support of his claims about T146, T147, T148, and the Ekottarikāgama, Hayashiya lists detailed differences and similarities between them at pages 676-680, stating that this is only part of the evidence he found in support of his views.) Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[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 |
|
|
Yes |
[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] 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; 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 |
|
|
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 Shi meng jing 十夢經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出阿毘曇舊錄云舍衛國王十夢經或云波斯匿王十夢經或云舍衛國王夢見十事經或云國王不黎先泥十夢經悉同一本; 17b24-25. 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 Shewei guowang meng jian shi shi jing 舍衛國王夢見十事經 T146, listed in the present canon (T) as anonymous 失譯; the Shewei guowang shi meng jing 舍衛國王十夢經 T147, listed in the present canon (T) without attribution or date; and the Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing 國王不[𥠖 SYM]梨先[尼 SYM]泥十夢經 T148, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|