Text: T0139; 佛說四泥犁經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikāgama"

Summary

Identifier T0139 [T]
Title 佛說四泥犁經 [T]
Date [None]
Unspecified Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935]
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).

Assertions

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

Edit

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

Edit

No

[CSZJJ]  Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 27c20

In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T139 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):

四泥犁經一卷.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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

Edit

No

[Fajing 594]  Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 133c17

Treated by Fajing as a byproduct/offshoot text 別生 from the *Ekottarikāgama 四泥犁經一卷, with no ascription.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Fei 597]  Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 70a8

The ascription of T139 to Tanwulan found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites a/the bie lu 別錄, and also specifically referring to CSZJJ, saying that the title differs there, and Sengyou treats it as anonymous, 四大[v.l. 夫 P]泥梨[v.l. 犁 P]經一卷(別錄載僧祐[ -- SYMP]三藏記云失譯無大字).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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. — 211-220

Sakaino argues that many of our extant ascriptions to Tanwulan were added by LDSBJ, and 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 translator. 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). Sakaino also studies this pattern in application to other translators (or supposed translators) elsewhere in his work; see esp. 80-86 for a general analysis of the overall pattern. Tanwulan is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure, and in this case, it leads to the especially misleading consequence that Tanwulan looks as if he was a pioneer in the systematic introduction of proto-Tantra into China, because Fei Changfang chose to assign to him portions of Sengyou's lists that had tantric-sounding topics. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Sakaino points out that in CSZJJ, by contrast, only two works are ascribed to Tanwulan: the 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR] and the 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR], for which the ascription is carried in CSZJJ.

Sakaino states that LDSBJ only presents (supposed) sources for its ascriptions to Tanwulan in six cases. He discusses these sources for these cases. Most of the texts in question are not extant. Sakaino surmisaes that among these six texts, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR”] and the Xian jie qian Fo ming jing 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR] are correctly ascribed to Tanwulan, as source for them is CSZJJ, based on Dao’an.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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. — 80-86

Sakaino Kōyō gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題である); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ.

According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include:

- “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經;
- titles containing the word bodhisatva 菩薩;
- titles containing the names of the Buddha’s disciples;
- titles containing words such as 比丘, 比丘尼, 出家, 沙門;
- titles related to heavens;
- scriptures based upon analogies to or allegories about kings, princes, sons of householders, children, Brahmins, sages (*ṛṣi), women, householders, merchants, or animals;
- scriptures organised by numerical rubrics;
- scriptures related to hells;
- scriptures relating to samādhi or *dhyāna/chan;
- scriptures using as metaphors rivers, plants, trees, etc.;
- esoteric scriptures;

Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82).

Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82).

For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.]

In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyāna). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list:

23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha.

24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふべき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles.

17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyāna, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.]

The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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.
尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16, An Shigao 安世高, 52a15.
善生子經 T17, Zhi Fadu 支法度, 68a17-18.
開解梵志阿颰經 T20, Zhi Qian 支謙, 57c22.
寂志果經 T22, Tanwulan 曇無蘭, 69c5.
頂生王故事經 T39, Faju 法炬, 67a19.
鐵城泥犁經 T42, Tanwulan, 70a14.
閻羅王五天使者經 T43, Huijian 慧簡, 93b10.
離睡經 T47, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 64b21.
求欲經 T49, Faju, 67a2.
受歲經 T50, Dharmarakṣa, 64a23.
苦陰經 T53, Anon., E. Han 東漢, 55a25.
苦陰因事經 T55, Faju, 67c18.
樂想經 T56, Dharmarakṣa, 64b25.
阿耨風經 T58, Tanwulan, 69c9.
瞿曇彌記果經 T60, Huijian, 93b19.
瞻婆比丘經 T64, Faju, 67b16.
伏婬經 T65, Faju, 66c26.
魔嬈亂經 T66, Anon., E. Han, 55a2.
弊魔試目連經/魔嬈亂經 T67, Zhi Qian, 58b23.
數經 T70, Faju, 66c20.
尊上經 T77, Dharmarakṣa, 64b25.
鸚鵡經 T79, Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, 91c13.
意經 T82, Dharmarakṣa, 64a21.
應法經 T83, Dharmarakṣa, 64a22.
泥犁經 T86, Tanwulan, 70a15.
八關齋經 T89, Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, 92c23.
鞞摩肅經 T90, Guṇabhadra, 91c13.
婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T91, An Shigao, 51b19.
十支居士八城人經 T92, An Shigao, 50c19.
相應相可經 T111, Faju, 67c15.
難提釋經 T113, Faju, 67c3.
波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 T122, Faju, 67b2.
放牛經 = T123, Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 78c5.
四人出現世間經 T127, Guṇabhadra, 91c7.
婆羅門避死經 T131, An Shigao, 51b24.
頻毘[v.l. 婆 SY]娑羅王詣佛供養經 T133, Faju, 67a26.
長者子六過出家經 T134, Huijian, 93b23.
四未曾有法經 T136, Dharmarakṣa, 64b3.
四泥犁經 T139, Tanwulan, 70a8.
阿那邠邸化七子經 T140, An Shigao, 50c18.
佛母般泥洹經 T145, Huijian, 93b22.
阿難同學經 T149, An Shigao, 52a12.
阿含正行經 T151, An Shigao, 52a24.
大方便佛報恩經 T156, Anon., E. Han, 54b18.
大意經 T177, Guṇabhadra, 91c18.
前世三轉經 T178, Faju, 67c16.
異出菩薩本起經 T188, Nie Daozhen 聶道真, 66a20.
十二遊經 T195, *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽, 70b27-c2.
興起行經 T197, Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, 54b2.
雜譬喻經 T205, Anon., E. Han, 54b25.
猘狗經 T214, Zhi Qian, 58c7.
群牛譬經 T215, Faju, 67a6.
大魚事經 T216, Tanwulan, 69c5.
仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245, Kumārajīva, 78a23-24.
法華三昧經 T269, Zhiyan 智嚴, 112c27.
諸菩薩求佛本業經 T282, Nie Daozhen, 65c19.
無垢施菩薩應辯會 T310(33), Nie Daozhen, 66a2.
菩薩修行經 T330, Bo Fazu 白法祖, 66b4.
優填王經 T332, Faju, 67b3.
大乘方等要慧經 T348, An Shigao, 52b17.
寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T356, An Shigao, 52b10-11.
出阿彌陀佛偈 T373, Anon., E. Han, 55b24-25.
般泥洹後灌臘經 T391, Dharmarakṣa, 64a24.
迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T393, Tanwulan, 70a19.
八吉祥神呪經 T427, Zhi Qian, 58b8.
八陽神呪經 T428, Dharmarakṣa, 64b4.
文殊師利般涅槃經 T463, Nie Daozhen, 65c7.
三曼陀跋陀羅菩薩經 T483, Nie Daozhen, 66a1.
六菩薩亦當誦持經 T491, Anon., E. Han, 54c19.
阿難問事佛吉凶經 T492, An Shigao, 51c22.
摩訶迦葉度貧母經 T497, Guṇabhadra, 91c26.
羅云忍辱經 T500, Faju, 66c22.
沙曷比丘功德經 T501, Faju, 67c13.
佛為年少比丘說正事經 T502, Faju, 67b24.
比丘避女惡名欲自殺經 T503, Faju, 67c10.
犍陀國王經 T506, An Shigao, 52b5.
阿闍世王問五逆經 T508, Faju, 67a24.
阿闍世王授決經 T509, Faju, 67a2.
採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 T510, Tanwulan, 69c12.
長者子懊惱三處經 T525, An Shigao, 50c13.
越難經 T537, Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠, 65b21.
樹提伽經 T540a/b, Guṇabhadra, 91c17.
摩鄧女經 T551, An Shigao, 52a6.
內身觀章句經 T610, Anon., E. Han, 55b4.
法觀經 T611, Dharmarakṣa, 64a21.
身觀經 T612, Dharmarakṣa, 64a20.
佛印三昧經 T621, An Shigao, 52b15.
自誓三昧經 T622, An Shigao, 51b5.
父母恩難報經 T684, An Shigao, 51a13.
盂蘭盆經 T685, Dharmarakṣa, 64a27.
未曾有經 T688, Anon., E. Han, 55a28.
作佛形像經 T692, Anon., E. Han, 54c2.
摩訶剎頭經 T696, Shengjian 聖堅, 83c9.
罪業應報教化地獄經 T724, An Shigao, 51c18.
分別善惡所起經 T729, An Shigao, 51a23.
處處經 T730, An Shigao, 51b9.
十八泥犁經 T731, An Shigao, 51c16.
罵意經 T732, An Shigao, 51b8.
堅意經 T733, An Shigao, 52a2.
鬼問目連經 T734, An Shigao, 51c15.
分別經 T738, Dharmarakṣa, 64a28.
慢法經 T739, Faju, 66c20.
忠心經 T743, Tanwulan, 70a6.
罪福報應經 T747b, Guṇabhadra, 91c5.
十二品生死經 T753, Guṇabhadra, 91c4.
四輩經 T769, Dharmarakṣa, 64a24.
四品學法經 T771, Guṇabhadra, 91c8.
賢者五福德經 T777, Bo Fazu, 66b14.
十二頭陀經 T783, Guṇabhadra, 91b25.
出家緣經 T791, An Shigao, 51a8.
貧窮老公經 T797a/b, Huijian, 93b14.
弟子死復生經 T826, Juqu Jingsheng, 93a3.
懈怠耕者經 T827, Huijian, 93b12.
阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 T1013, Guṇabhadra, 92a8.
呪齒經 T1327, Tanwulan, 70b11.
華積陀羅尼神呪經 T1356, Zhi Qian, 58b7.
玄師颰陀所說神呪經 T1378b, Tanwulan, 70b9.
檀特羅麻油述經 T1391, Tanwulan, 70b3-70b4.
摩尼羅亶經 T1393, Tanwulan, 70a24, 70b1.
犯戒罪報輕重經 T1467, An Shigao, 51b1.
大比丘三千威儀 T1470, An Shigao, 50a23-24.
沙彌尼戒經 T1474, Anon., E. Han, 54c27.
戒消災經 T1477, Zhi Qian, 58a11.
菩薩受齋經 T1502, Nie Daozhen, 65c18.
分別功德論 T1507, Anon., E. Han, 54b19.
阿毘曇甘露味論 T1553, Anon., Cao Wei 曹魏, 60b18.
請賓頭盧法 T1689, Huijian, 93b17.
迦葉結經 T2027, An Shigao, 52b16.

This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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

Edit
  • Title: Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikāgama"