Text: T0750; 沙彌羅經

Summary

Identifier	T0750 [T]
Title	沙彌羅經 [T]
Date	秦 [T]
Translator 譯	Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [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.	T0750; 沙彌羅經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 沙彌羅經 People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯) Date: 秦 Identifier: T0750
No	[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 845-860	T0555; 五母子經 T0750; 沙彌羅經	The Wu muzi jing 五母子經is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Other than this text, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists a text titled Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate [versions of the same] scriptures in the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經録 . Later catalogues describe the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as a retranslation 重出 of the Wu muzi jing 五母子經, although Sengyou did not say anything about the relation between the two texts because the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 was lost in his time. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as duplicate translations 重出 of the same text. Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu used the peculiar term chongchu 重出 because at least some of the editors of Fajing saw both texts and found significant differences between the two with regard to the content, while their stories and vocabulary are almost the same. Hayashiya claims further that this peculiar relation between the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing explains the fact that Dao’an included the Shamiluo jing in his Guanzhong catalogue of alternate scriptures 關中異經録: Although the Shamiluo jing was popular in some places in Dao’an’s time and could be considered as the same text as the Wu muzi jing, its content differed noticeably from that of the Wu muzi jing, so Dao’an classified the Shamiluo jing as a text known only in the Guanzhong 關中 area. After Fajing, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu followed Fajing’s description of those two texts, and Jingtai 靜泰錄 stated that both were two sheets 紙 long. It is clear that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluojing were extant between the Sui and the Tang, while considered anonymous. LDSBJ 三寶記classified the Wu muzi jing 五母子經 as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as an anonymous scripture of the the San Qin 三秦 period. Hayashiya maintains that LDSBJ could happen to be right regarding the Shamiluo jing (if the San Qin period is taken to mean the early Qin), but the ascription of the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian is wrong. It is wrong because LDSBJ does not show any reason for the ascription, and the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Wu muzi jing is clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ and ascribes the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian. Furthermore, it regards the Shamiluo jing as a translation by *Dharmakṣema 曇摩讖. Hayashiya claims that this ascription must have been a mistake. KYL 開元錄 pointed out this mistake, according to Hayashiya, but KYL followed LDSBJ overall, and so must also be corrected. The lengths of both the surviving Wu muzi jing 五母子經 T555 and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 T750 are roughly the same (two sheets 紙 long) as that recorded in catalogues such as Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL. There are two Wu muzi jing in the Taishō, the Ming 明 version and the Korean 麗 version, so it is not immediately clear which one is the one listed in those catalogues, but we can be sure that it is one of the two. Hayashiya compares the three texts - the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing – and makes following observations: It is clear the two Wu muzi jing have developed from one and the same text. However, it is not clear whether the Ming version was produced by simplifying the Korean version, or the Korean version was produced by amplifying the Ming version. Similar things can be said about the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing. Not only do the two titles share the same story, but they also share a considerable amount of vocabulary. This being so, the differences between the two are likely to be the result of the processes of transmission and recitation. Alternatively, even if the two were composed separately, probably the one composed later just used the previous version, with some changes. This close similarity explains Fajing’s description of the two as "alternate translations" chongchu 重出. It is difficult to determine that which of the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing was composed first, although Hayashiya speculates that the Shamiluo jing could be older, based on the fact that the text takes shami 沙彌 as Shamiluo 沙彌羅, and misunderstands Shamiluo as a personal name. Hayashiya claims that the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing are different variations of the same text, and even if one of them is actually a newer translation using a new original, it must be considered as a simple revision of the previous translation/s. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that, for the purposes of the history of translated texts, only one of the three should suffice, and the other two would be dispensable. However, Hayashiya proposes to leave the two titles as they are, since there are indeed differences among the three versions, and the oldest has not been identified. The vocabulary and tone of both texts should place them in the early W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Further, given that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing had already been separated by the time of Dao’an, the date of composition of the two titles is probably about the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki Edit	People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯) Date: 魏呉

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[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.

T0750; 沙彌羅經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 沙彌羅經
People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)
Date: 秦
Identifier: T0750

[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 845-860

The Wu muzi jing 五母子經is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Other than this text, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 lists a text titled Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate [versions of the same] scriptures in the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經録 . Later catalogues describe the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as a retranslation 重出 of the Wu muzi jing 五母子經, although Sengyou did not say anything about the relation between the two texts because the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 was lost in his time. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as duplicate translations 重出 of the same text. Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu used the peculiar term chongchu 重出 because at least some of the editors of Fajing saw both texts and found significant differences between the two with regard to the content, while their stories and vocabulary are almost the same. Hayashiya claims further that this peculiar relation between the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing explains the fact that Dao’an included the Shamiluo jing in his Guanzhong catalogue of alternate scriptures 關中異經録: Although the Shamiluo jing was popular in some places in Dao’an’s time and could be considered as the same text as the Wu muzi jing, its content differed noticeably from that of the Wu muzi jing, so Dao’an classified the Shamiluo jing as a text known only in the Guanzhong 關中 area. After Fajing, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu followed Fajing’s description of those two texts, and Jingtai 靜泰錄 stated that both were two sheets 紙 long. It is clear that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluojing were extant between the Sui and the Tang, while considered anonymous.

LDSBJ 三寶記classified the Wu muzi jing 五母子經 as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 as an anonymous scripture of the the San Qin 三秦 period. Hayashiya maintains that LDSBJ could happen to be right regarding the Shamiluo jing (if the San Qin period is taken to mean the early Qin), but the ascription of the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian is wrong. It is wrong because LDSBJ does not show any reason for the ascription, and the vocabulary and tone of the surviving Wu muzi jing is clearly different from that of Zhi Qian.

DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ and ascribes the Wu muzi jing to Zhi Qian. Furthermore, it regards the Shamiluo jing as a translation by *Dharmakṣema 曇摩讖. Hayashiya claims that this ascription must have been a mistake. KYL 開元錄 pointed out this mistake, according to Hayashiya, but KYL followed LDSBJ overall, and so must also be corrected.

The lengths of both the surviving Wu muzi jing 五母子經 T555 and the Shamiluo jing 沙彌羅經 T750 are roughly the same (two sheets 紙 long) as that recorded in catalogues such as Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL. There are two Wu muzi jing in the Taishō, the Ming 明 version and the Korean 麗 version, so it is not immediately clear which one is the one listed in those catalogues, but we can be sure that it is one of the two.

Hayashiya compares the three texts - the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing – and makes following observations: It is clear the two Wu muzi jing have developed from one and the same text. However, it is not clear whether the Ming version was produced by simplifying the Korean version, or the Korean version was produced by amplifying the Ming version. Similar things can be said about the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing. Not only do the two titles share the same story, but they also share a considerable amount of vocabulary. This being so, the differences between the two are likely to be the result of the processes of transmission and recitation. Alternatively, even if the two were composed separately, probably the one composed later just used the previous version, with some changes. This close similarity explains Fajing’s description of the two as "alternate translations" chongchu 重出. It is difficult to determine that which of the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing was composed first, although Hayashiya speculates that the Shamiluo jing could be older, based on the fact that the text takes shami 沙彌 as Shamiluo 沙彌羅, and misunderstands Shamiluo as a personal name. Hayashiya claims that the two Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing are different variations of the same text, and even if one of them is actually a newer translation using a new original, it must be considered as a simple revision of the previous translation/s.

Thus, Hayashiya maintains that, for the purposes of the history of translated texts, only one of the three should suffice, and the other two would be dispensable. However, Hayashiya proposes to leave the two titles as they are, since there are indeed differences among the three versions, and the oldest has not been identified. The vocabulary and tone of both texts should place them in the early W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Further, given that the Wu muzi jing and the Shamiluo jing had already been separated by the time of Dao’an, the date of composition of the two titles is probably about the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)
Date: 魏呉