| Identifier | T0106 [T] |
| Title | 佛說水沫所漂經 [T] |
| Date | 魏呉 [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 |
[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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 1323-1332 |
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 archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hīnayāna translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taishō (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SĀ 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SĀ 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. 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 |
|
|
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 |
|