| Identifier | T0751 [T] |
| Title | 佛說五無反復經 [T] |
| Date | W. Jin 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Translator 譯 | Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 [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 |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 127 n. 42 |
Nattier does not accept the attribution to Juqu Jingsheng. She calls the text an "archaic translation of unknown authorship". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 756-759 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Wu wufanfu jing 五無反復經 and related titles is as follows: A Wu wufanfu jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 simply as Wu wufanfu jing in 1 juan 五無反復經一巻. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes a Wu wufanfu jing , with the alternate title Wuyou fanfu jing 五有返復經, as an anonymous scripture in its catalogue of the Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) records the same information as Fajing. Jingtai 靜泰錄 also records the same, stating that the text is four sheets in length. Thus, all catalogues of scriptures admitted to the canon 入藏錄 and those of the extant canon 現藏錄 down to Jingtai classified the text as a single anonymous text. (Hayashiya explains that small differences in the tiles in the catalogues do not matter in this case, because 反復 and 返復 means roughly the same thing (viz., “to repeat”). Further, both 五無反復 and 五有反復 match the content of the text. In the story, a monk accuses a family and their servant (five people in total) of apparently not lamenting the death of their family member more than once (無返復), and the Buddha admonished this monk by saying, 最有反復. This text is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, with the title Wu wufanfu dayi jing 五無反覆大義經. Following that, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 lists a Wu wufanfu jing in the group of single Hīnayāna texts, with the alternate title Wu you fanfu dayi jing 五有返覆大義經. Accordingly, KYL 開元錄 also lists the title as an extant single Hīnayāna text ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng. It also included the title in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄, with a length of two sheets. Hayashiya then clarifies two issues. One is the relation between different versions of the text in the Taishō. There are three versions: (a) Wu wufanfu jing (Song 宋 version); (b) Wu wufanfu jing (Ming 明 version) (both T751), and (c) Wu wufanfu jing (Korean 麗 version, T752). All of these texts are ascribed to Jingsheng. The other is the issue of discrepancies regarding the length of the text: Jingtai records it as four sheets, DZKZM as three sheets, and KYL as two sheets. This is odd, Hayashiya points out, because in principle the length of a text measured in the format of DZKZM or KYL should be 20% or so longer than that measured with the format of Jingtai. As for the first issue, the existence of different versions, Hayshiya maintains that they should be counted as one and the same text, because: 1. Differences between versions (a) and (b) are so small that there is no problem in regarding the two as the same scripture; 2. Although version (c) is in a number of places evidently different from the other two, the differences are not significant enough to judge that (c) is a different translation work, and therefore they are a result of natural transmission errors and additions; 3. There are many other cases of discrepancies of this kind among versions of the same text with non-essential differences. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there was only ever one Wu wufanfu jing, with no alternate translations. Based on the finding that there is only one Wu wufanfu jing, Hayashiya gives an answer to the second issue, viz., discrepancies among the catalogues regarding the length of the text. He claims that, since the length of the original version of the text must have been between two registers and two registers and a few lines, Jingtai should have recorded it as two or three sheets, while DZKZM and KYL should have recorded it as three sheets (which means that only DZKZM got it right). Hayashiya states that it is quite odd that both Jingtai and KYL stated an incorrect length (four sheets and two sheets respectively), but maintains that we have to conclude that those lengths are scribal errors. Hayashiya points out that the three versions of the Wu wufanfu jing in the Taishō share the same style, which is clearly that of the Western Jin 西晋 period, and hence asserts that the ascription of the text to Jingsheng given by LDSBJ is incorrect. Thus, he concludes that the ascription to Jingsheng in LDSBJ, DZKZM and KYL must be rejected, and that the Wu wufanfu jing must be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, because of its the style and the fact that it is included in Dao’an’s catalogue . Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 707-714 |
|
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. He deals with sixteen out of twenty-one such ascriptions, since the other five are discussed elsewhere (and established as incorrect). The sixteen titles are as follows (as shown in Dao'an's list, with the title in LDSBJ in brackets when it differs from Dao’an). Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 (The other five titles that LDSBJ ascribe to Jingsheng are: Pusa Shi jing 菩薩誓經, Shengsi bianshi jing 生死変識經, Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經, Fanmo huang jing 梵摩皇經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經.) Hayashiya maintains that, unless Fei Changfang 費長房 had reliable sources, it is difficult to believe that he found as many as twenty-one texts to be the works of Jingsheng without directly examining their contents, when Dao’an could not give specific ascriptions for the same texts. However, Fei’s source, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of the [Liu] Song canon” 宋時衆經別錄, which he briefly mentions at the end of the list of texts ascribed to Jingsheng, is unlikely to have given such ascriptions, for the following reasons: 1) if it had, those ascriptions should have been reflected in CSZJJ; and 2) since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources of Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed as many as twenty-one texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing. Hayashiya adds that the unreliability of Fei’s ascriptions to Jingsheng is also shown in the fact that he sometimes even cites the same “separate catalogue” as the source of different ascriptions of the same text, e.g., of the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 to Jingsheng and to Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that any texts included in Dao’an’s catalogue should not be works of Jingsheng, who was active under the Song 宋. He also rejects the possibility that the titles in LDSBJ refer to texts different from those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, on the grounds that no catalogues preceding LDSBJ even suggested the existence of such texts. Next, Hayashiya discusses the language and style of those scriptures. He lists eleven extant texts out of the sixteen titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, and compares them with the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經, which has been established as the work of Jingsheng since CSZJJ. Hayashiya points out that, while the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing starts with 如是我聞 and uses vocabulary and terminology newer than that of the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, all of the eleven texts dubiously ascribed to Jingsheng start with 聞如是 and use vocabulary much older than that of the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing. Moreover, there are considerable discrepancies between the styles of these texts. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the eleven texts in question are not the works of Jingsheng. They should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Jingsheng as follows: 1. Jingsheng’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; Hayashiya adds that reliable ascriptions and dates of scriptures should be found by studying catalogues that were compiled honestly, not by believing what LDSBJ states. 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. — 869-870 |
According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he gave a new ascription with no factual basis to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Wu fanfu dayi jing 五反覆大義經, which is most likely to be the same as the Wu wu fanfu 五無反覆 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯. The title of the extant text is also 五無反復經 T751 . Given the content of this scripture, Sakaino points out, the title should in fact be 五無反覆, not 五反覆. 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. — 866-871 |
|
Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 added in LDSBJ 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 or Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single or several translators. 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). Juqu Jingsheng is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Most of the titles newly ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng by Fei were actually taken either from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 (21 titles) or from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 (10 titles). Sakaino claims that it is clear that Fei just took the entry baselessly from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts, since too many titles were newly given the ascription by Fei, and, furthermore, Fei imports most of the titles in a particular section 段 in the catalogue into his list of works that he ascribes to Juqu Jingsheng. To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists all the 35 titles that Fei listed as Juqu Jingsheng’s work, indicating which ones were taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts and which ones were from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (868-869). Sakaino asserts that 4 titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in CSZJJ (3 extant, 1 lost) are the only reliable record of Juqu Jingsheng’s work (871). 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 Wu wu fanfu jing 五無反復經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17b13. 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 Wu wu fanfu jing 五無反復經 T751, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|