Text: T0746; 餓鬼報應經

Summary

Identifier	T0746 [T]
Title	餓鬼報應經 [T]
Date	東晉 [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.	T0746; 餓鬼報應經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 餓鬼報應經 People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯) Date: 東晉 Identifier: T0746
No	[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 55-56	T0734; 佛說鬼問目連經 T0745; 佛說雜藏經 T0746; 餓鬼報應經	Tokiwa presents an example of a mistake apparently made by Baochang and recorded in LDSBJ, regarding the Za zang jing 雜藏經 T745 ascribed to Faxian 法顕. Fei, citing Baochang, adds that there exist four alternate translations, viz., the Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 T734, the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 T746, the Mulian shuo diyu jing 目連説地獄經, and the Egui yinyuan jing 餓鬼因縁經. Tokiwa claims that it is highly plausible that Fei really obtained this information from Baochang. According to Tokiwa, KYL pointed out three mistakes in this statement: 1) The Egui baoying jing is incorrectly classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period; 2) the Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經 is actually one title, but is presented as two titles; and 3) although Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing is just an alternate title of the Egui baoying jing, it is presented as the title of different text. Tokiwa maintains that these mistakes were included in LDSBJ because the information was taken from Baochang without correction. He infers that many other pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were taken from Baochang in this manner, and claims further that if Fei recorded what previous catalogues stated even when that information is suspicious, it is possible to regard that habit as a virtue rather than a defect. Entry author: Michael Radich Edit

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.

T0746; 餓鬼報應經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 餓鬼報應經
People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)
Date: 東晉
Identifier: T0746

[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 55-56

Tokiwa presents an example of a mistake apparently made by Baochang and recorded in LDSBJ, regarding the Za zang jing 雜藏經 T745 ascribed to Faxian 法顕. Fei, citing Baochang, adds that there exist four alternate translations, viz., the Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 T734, the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 T746, the Mulian shuo diyu jing 目連説地獄經, and the Egui yinyuan jing 餓鬼因縁經. Tokiwa claims that it is highly plausible that Fei really obtained this information from Baochang. According to Tokiwa, KYL pointed out three mistakes in this statement: 1) The Egui baoying jing is incorrectly classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period; 2) the Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經 is actually one title, but is presented as two titles; and 3) although Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing is just an alternate title of the Egui baoying jing, it is presented as the title of different text. Tokiwa maintains that these mistakes were included in LDSBJ because the information was taken from Baochang without correction. He infers that many other pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were taken from Baochang in this manner, and claims further that if Fei recorded what previous catalogues stated even when that information is suspicious, it is possible to regard that habit as a virtue rather than a defect.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit