| Identifier | T0816 [T] |
| Title | 佛說道神足無極變化經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | An Faqin, 安法欽 [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 |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 65a13-20, 53b22 |
The ascription of T816 to An Faqin in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites the Zhu Daozu 竺道祖 catalogue and the “miscellaneous catalogue(s?) of the Jin era”晉世雜錄. The same title is also given as an alternate title of the 合道神足經四卷(一名道神足無極變化經), which is listed among anonymous Han texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 117c1 |
Ascribed to An Faqin in an interlinear note: 道神足無極變化經二卷(晉太康年安法欽譯) [MR: This appears to be the first time that T816 is ascribed to An Faqin; it is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 21c16-17 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T816 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. 道神足無極變化經四卷(一名合道神足經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 12 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Xu and Huang argue that the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 and the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 were translated by An Faqin, on the basis of comparison of the lexical and syntactic features of T2042 and T816. They refer to Xu Zhengkao 徐正考 and Huang Na 黃娜. “Yuyan tezheng de kaocha yu ‘wuti’ yijing yizhe de queding–yi Ayuwang jing he Ayuwang zhuan wei li” 語言特征的考察與“誤題”譯經譯者的確定——以《阿育王經》和《阿育王傳》為例. Jilin daxue (Shehui kexue xuebao) 吉林大學（社會科學學報） 1 (2013): 160–167. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 12 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the ascription of the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 to An Faqin is unreliable. Wang also argues, on the basis of phraseology, that the translation of the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 postdates the Eastern Jin. They refer to Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Yiming de guilü xing yu wuti jing yizhe de panding–‘Ayuwang zhuan wei Xi Jin An Faqin yi’ xianyi” 譯名的規律性與誤題經譯者的判定——“《阿育王傳》為西晉安法欽譯”獻疑. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol. 20, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 64–74. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu, 2018. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
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 |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 286 |
Kamata discusses a list of W. Jin translators mentioned in in KYL, noting that it might include figures who never existed, or existed but did not in fact translate. Zhi Lianglouzhi 彊梁婁至 and An Fayin 安法欽 are such dubious figures, as they do not appear in Dao’an’s catalogue, nor in CSZJJ. Zhi Lianglouzhi firsts appears in LDSBJ as the translator 譯出 of the Shi’er you jing 十二遊經 [cf. T195 ascribed to *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽; no texts are ascribed to Zhi Lianglouzhi in the present T --- MR]. An Faqin 安法欽 appears [in LDSBJ, Kamata seems to mean -- AI] as the translator of five titles in twelve juan, including the “Sūtra of the Mighty King Aśoka” 大阿育王經 (阿育王傳 T2042, still ascribed to An Fayin in T) and the Dao shenzu wuji bianjua jing 道神足無極変化經 T816 (which also still carries the ascription to An Faqin). Kamata maintains that these ascriptions to An Faqin are not reliable, as their supposed source is the “catalogue of the Jin era” 晉世雜錄 by Zhu Daoyu 竺道祖. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Iwamatsu 1976b] Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫. “Nehan gyō shōhon no hon’yakusha 涅槃経小本の翻訳者.” IBK 25, no. 1 (1976): 244-247. — 244-245 |
Iwamatsu states that An Faqin himself never appears in any source before LDSBJ, and also appears in no other Sui catalogue. Thus, the very existence of Faqin himself is questionable, and he may be a "ghost" conjured up by LDSBJ. If this is true, obviously it would undermine the received ascription of T816. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Hō Kyō roku ni tsuite 法經錄について." IBK 19, no. 1 (1970): 235-238. |
|
Naitō gives some general information about Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. It was composed in the space of two months in 594 by a commission of 22 scholars. Hayashiya argued that the catalogue was composed in preparation for the copying of the full canon. Naitō argues that there must have been some circumstances precipitating the rush. He notes that suspicious texts were also recorded and categorised as such, which would be odd if the sole purpose of the catalogue was to list works to be included in an approved version of the canon. He therefore proposes that the catalogue, and the canon connected to it, were prepared as a response to the notorious incident in Guangzhou in 593 surrounding the use of the Zhancha jing 占察經, in which practices of self-flagellation, "stupa repentance" rites, and the "mixing of the sixes" were connected with the use of a scripture that a commission of experts then declared spurious. Among the reasons they gave that the text was inauthentic was that the text was recorded in no earlier catalogues, which Naitō treats as circumstantial evidence that there was a mentality current that could see the compilation of a new catalogue as associated with a similar agenda to determine which texts were authoritative and, by implication, which were spurious, in order to forestall recurrence of like incidents. Naitō also treats the problem of the sources of Fajing's work. Determination of his sources is made difficult by the fact that the catalogue does not explicitly give its sources. Fei Zhangfang/Changfang says that Fajing had seventeen catalogues at his disposal, but then does not himself admit that so many catalogues were extant in their time. Naitō reports very briefly that he has compared the treatment of extant translations in Fajing with treatment in other sources, for a total of 79 translators and 556 works, but here gives no details, rather, promising to report his findings in another venue. He notes that a total of 428 texts were ascribed to named translators in CSZJJ, but in Fajing, that number increases to 459 for translators down to the end of the Qi (i.e. before Sengyou's time). In other words, Fajing has added at least 31 new ascriptions. As a matter of fact, there are 34 more ascriptions on which Fajing does not agree with CSZJJ, for a total of 65 new ascriptions. Naitō is unable to determine Fajing's sources for these ascriptions, but he notes that in total, they entail, among other things, the addition of nine new "translators" to the record: Tanguo 曇果 [cf. T196], Tankejialuo 曇柯迦羅 [to whom no extant texts are ascribed today], Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 [cf. T360, T1432, X11], Fajian 法堅 [cf. T495], Zhi Fadu 支法度 [cf. T17, T527], An Faqin 安法欽 [cf. T816, T2042], Fahai 法海 [cf. T1490], Xian gong 先公 [cf. T640, T641], and Xiang gong 翔公 [cf. T234]. Naitō argues that probably five catalogues were in fact extant at Fajing's (and Fei's) time, in addition to GSZ: CSZJJ, Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue, Li Kuo's 李廓 catalogue, Fashang's 法上 catalogue, and the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄. Prior scholarship had understood that Baochang collected information from a range of older catalogues, and that Baochang was in turn the proximate source for the use of information from these older catalogues in Fei's LDSBJ (Naitō refers to Tokiwa for this view). Naitō doubts this, because he believes that Baochang only reported 226 ascriptions for sutras, and this number probably did not exceed 300 even when śāstras and vinaya works are taken into account; but this total is too few to account for the profusion of new information reported under the Sui. He notes further that comparison to CSZJJ, the only case in which we can check Fei's information against his source, shows that when LDSBJ says "see such-and-such a catalogue", it only means that the title is listed in the source, not the ascription --- CSZJJ is cited in this manner for texts that CSZJJ itself clearly treats as anonymous. Naitō also discusses Fajing's probable use of Fashang's catalogue. He notes that Fashang stopped at about 568-570, and that Fajing does the same. He takes this fact to indicate that Fajing just took Fashang's information over holus-bolus, and suggests that ascriptions to Fajian, Fahai, and Xian gong were probably added on this basis. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 376 |
The Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 is an alternate translation of the same text as the Fo sheng Daoli tian wei mu shuo fa jing 佛昇忉利天爲母説法經 T815, although the verses spoken by Mahāmaudgalyāyana 目連 before the section on the Pure Lands of the eight directions 八方浄土 is unique to T816. T816 is listed in the section of extant anonymous scriptures of CSZJJ under the title Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing, with the alternate title He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經. Fajing ascribes it to An Faqin 安法欽, followed by LDSBJ. Ōno states that he provisionally accepts the ascription to An Faqin. 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. — 98 |
Sakaino suggests that An Faxian 安法賢 as a person might have been created accidentally as a variation on the name of Fajian 法堅 (i.e., Shengjian 聖堅), and then An Faqin 安法欽 as a variation of An Faxian. This being so, both An Faxian and An Faqin might never have existed, but rather, be ghosts created by Fei. This would have the implication that all ascriptions to An Faxian and An Faqin are spurious. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 92-98 |
Sakaino claims that it is difficult to determine who really translated the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 [T816 ascribed to An Faqin 安法欽], but it is likely to be the work of *Lokakṣema 支讖 judging from the terminology (according to Sakaino, the examples of terms/phrases specific to *Lokakṣema include: 阿耨多羅三耶三菩心/阿耨多羅三耶三佛; the heaven names 四王天上、炎天、兜術天、尼摩羅提天、波羅尼蜜、惒耶拔致天; 尼摩羅提; and 如恒邊沙爲一佛刹). Sakaino states that LDSBJ is the ultimate source of all the ascriptions to Tandi, *Dharmasatya(?) 曇諦, An Faxian 安法賢, An Faqin and Shengjian 聖堅 that appear in various catalogues [Sakaino seems to suggest that all of those ascriptions, including the ascription of T816 to An Faqin, are baseless, simply because they were first given by LDSBJ ---AI]. Sakaino also states that probably An Faqin did not exist. One of the reasons for his suggestion is the oddness of the character 欽 in his name, which does not appear to be either the translation or transliteration of any Sanskrit word (95-96). Sakaino proposes that probably both An Faqin and An Faxian were both probably created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shenjian (96-98). 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. — 92-98 |
Sakaino proposes that An Faqin 安法欽, like An Faxian 安法賢, probably in fact never existed, but rather, was a ghost created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shengjian 聖堅. Sakaino states that LDSBJ ascribes the following five titles to An Faqin 安法欽: the Da Ayuwang jing 大阿育王經 (5 juan) (cf. T2042), the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 (2 juan) (T816), the Wenshushili xian baozang jing 文殊師利現寶藏經 (2 juan) (cf. T461), the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 (2 juan) (cf. T626), and the Anantuo muqunihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (1 juan) (cf. T1013). Sakaino obviously rejects all of these ascriptions to An Faqin. Among the above five titles, the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 [T816] and the 大阿育王經 [阿育王傳 T2042] are extant and still ascribed to An Faqin in T. According to Sakaino, T816 is likely to be the work of *Lokakṣema 支讖 judging from the terminology. Sakaino suggests no alternate ascription for T2042, only claiming that its vocabulary is clearly newer than that of T816, and that this title is the only one among the five that does not appear in any of previous catalogues. As for the other four titles, the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing and the Anantuo muqu nihelituo jing are found in the “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄 of CSZJJ; the Wenshushili xian baozang jing is found in the catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄, and may be the same text as the Fazang jing 法藏經ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in CSZJJ; and the title Asheshi wang jing was probably taken from a title ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in CSZJJ. Sakaino maintains that these four were ascribed to An Faqin in LDSBJ by confusion or deliberate fabrication. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|