| Identifier | T0742 [T] |
| Title | 佛說自愛經 [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 | 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 |
[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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 683-685 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing 自愛不自愛經 is as follows: The Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 (stating that it is called Zi'ai jing 自愛經 in the "old catalogue" 舊錄). The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu included a Zi'ai jing, with Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing as an alternate title, in its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) recorded the same text and titles in the group of single Hīnayāna texts 小乗經單本. Jingtai 靜泰錄 in the Tang period listed the same scripture with a length of four sheets 紙. Hayashiya points out that since both Yancong and Jingtai are catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄, of the Sui and the Tang periods respectively, the text must have been extant in those periods. The scripture is first ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in LDSBJ, followed by KYL 開元錄. KYL recorded its length as five sheets. Hayashiya explains that the difference of one sheet between the lengths shown in Jingtai and KYL is due to the fact that in transcribing scriptures, KYL uses the format of DZKZM, which would take about twenty percent more space than the format of Jingtai. Then he points out that the Zi'ai jing 自愛經 ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 in the Taishō (T742) is slightly longer than four registers long, a length which corresponds to roughly four sheets or slightly less in Jingtai’s format, and five sheets or slightly less in KYL’s format. Based on this length, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taishō is the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing/Zi'ai jing that has been listed in the catalogues since the Sui period. Moreover, Hayashiya argues that the style of language in T742 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and therefore it is most reasonable to regard the text as the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing listed in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. Thus, he concludes that the Zi'ai bu zi'ai jing /Zi'ai jing should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. Hayashiya rejects the Taishō’s ascription of T742 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, because this ascription only follows KYL, who in turn follows LDSBJ, whose ascription has been proven to be incorrect. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 660-668 |
|
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles found in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. He focuses on ten out of fourteen such ascriptions, since the other four are discussed elsewhere (where Hayashiya argues that they are incorrect). The titles of the ten texts in LDSBJ are as follows (Taishō title, if it differs, is noted separately; followed by Dao’an’s title; alternate titles and notes omitted for simplicity): Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing 阿難多洹羅云母經 [Luoyun mu jing 羅云母經] The other four titles discussed by Hayashiya elsewhere in the same work (Kyōroku kenkyū) are: Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經, Anan nian Mile jing 阿難念彌勒經, and Pinsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經. Among these four, Hayashiya points out that the Sanshiqi pin jing (one of four texts referred to by the same title ) was composed 撰述 by Tanwulan, not translated by him (821-828). The other three are “ghost scriptures,” fabricated by Fei Changfang 費長房 to add to existing entries with the same or similar titles. Hayashiya states that those four cases give us a reason to suspect the validity of LDSBJ’s record of the other ten titles. Hayashiya point out that, first, since Dao’an’s catalogue generally collects translated scriptures of or before the W. Jin 西晋 period, any texts included in the catalogue should not be works of Tanwulan, who flourished during the E. Jin 東晋. Still, he claims that there may be some exceptional cases, so it is better to examine each case separately, firstly by investigating the grounds for those ascriptions, and secondly by evaluating the writing style of language of those scriptures. Hayashiya also asserts that Fei Changfang does not show any convincing grounds for those ascriptions to Tanwulan. Hayashiya makes this point by rejecting two sources that Fei mentions in LDSBJ. First, LDSBJ cites the “old catalogue” 舊錄 as the source of the ascription of four of the ten titles, namely Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing, Zi’ai jing, Qi meng jing, and Hediao anahan jing. However, Hayashiya points out that the “old catalogue” focuses on showing the titles of scriptures and the sources of their alternative titles, so it should not have anything to do with ascriptions to Tanwulan. Second, according to Hayashiya, Fei suggests that most of the ascriptions to Tanwulan are based on the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of Song scriptures” 宋時衆經別錄. Hayashiya maintains that this claim of Fei's is untrue for the following three reasons: 1) Like the old catalogue, the “separate catalogue” does not aim to provide ascriptions; 2) Since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources for Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed more than one hundred texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing; and 3) Although Sengyou must have seen the “separate catalogue”, he regarded only two titles, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經, as the work of Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that all the ascriptions to Tanwulan shown in LDSBJ are not based on reliable sources, except for the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經. Hayashiya next moves on to the evaluation of the writing style of these scriptures. Luckily, nine out of the ten scriptures ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ are extant (as listed above). The Taishō ascribes all of those nine texts to Tanwulan, since it follows KYL in principle, which in turn relies very often on LDSBJ. Hayashiya maintains that the nine texts in the Taishō are the same as those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and in LDSBJ. Hayashiya admits that, judging from their style, all of these nine texts must have been produced at or before the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, so that in terms of period, it is not impossible that they are the work of Tanwulan. However, Hayashiya argues that there is no uniform style among the nine texts. He also points out that, among other extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ, there are diverse styles, such as that of the Latter Han 後漢 period, or that later than the Song and Qi 宋齋 periods, and hence there is no text among them that can be reliably ascribed to Tanwulan (he refers to his own “Dommuran yakkyō no kenkyū 竺無蘭譯經の研究” for detailed discussions about each title). Hayashiya conjectures that some of the double ascriptions that Changfang gives to some of those titles ascribed to Tanwulan may be part of his efforts to make less noticeable the inconsistency among the styles of the texts. Furthermore, Hayashiya claims that the only texts that are established as Tanwulan’s work, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing, are not extant (the extant Sanshiqi pin jing is actually the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, and the extant Xianjie qian Fo jing is much newer than it should be, as it is included in the Liang catalogue 梁錄 of the Taishō ). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no way to determine which texts are the work of Tanwulan based on style and language, and hence it is not certain if any genuine Tanwulan work is extant. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan as follows: 1. Tanwulan’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; Hayashiya adds that he does not deal with the Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing, the only lost text among the ten titles, because these general considerations already give us good reasons to safely reject the ascription. 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 Zi’ai bu zi’ai jing 自愛不自愛經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 舊錄云自愛經; 17c4. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, 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 Zi’ai jing 自愛經 T742, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2023b] Nattier, Jan. "On Two Previously Unidentified Verses in Zhi Qian's Hybrid Dharmapada." ARIRIAB 26 (2023): 215-252. — 219 n. 20 |
Nattier notes that T742 includes an "unacknowledged citation" from T210: T742 17.549c22-25, from T210 4.562a13-16. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|