| Identifier | T0798 [T] |
| Title | 佛說進學經 [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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 752-756 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Jinxue jing 進學經 and related titles is as follows: A Jinxue jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 with the alternate title Quan jin xue dao jing 勸進學道經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Jinxue jing in its “Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue" 小乗修多羅藏錄 as an anonymous scripture. Yancong (仁壽録) regards this text as an offshoot scripture 別生抄經, and lists it among the Hīnayāna offshoot texts 小乗別生抄. Accordingly, Jingtai 靜泰錄 also includes the title, but without giving the length. All of Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai recorded only one Jinxue jing , with no alternate translations. However, LDSBJ lists three Jinxue jing : a Quan jin xue dao jing /Jin xue dao jing 進學道經 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙 of the Wu 呉period; a Jinxue jing ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 of the Song 宋 period; and a Quan jin jing 勸進經/Quan jin xue dao jing 勸進學道經 ascribed to Yong gong 勇公 of the Song 宋 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of the above three ascriptions are groundless, for the following reasons: The ascription to Juqu Jingsheng is incorrect, referring to his own elucidation at 707-714, where he argues in detail that all of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of the titles included in Dao’an’s catalogue to Jingsheng are incorrect. His reasons include: 1) any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue could not have been produced in the Song period; 2) the source of those ascriptions suggested by Fei Changfang 費長房, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, could not have given such ascriptions, since if it had, Fajing should have mentioned them. Regarding the ascription to Zhi Qian, Hayashiya asserts again that all of LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Zhi Qian are incorrect, referring to his own “Shi ken yakkyō no kenkyū 支謙譯經の研究” [I was unable to indentify this item—AI]. About the ascription to Yong gong, Fei cites as his sources the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, the Zhao catalogue 趙錄, and the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, but Hayashiya argues that all of these could not have given such an ascription. This is because if Changfang really saw the Shixing catalogue and the Zhao catalogue, he must have seen them in the form of quotations in the Fashang catalogue (so only the Fashang catalogue matters in this case); and if there had been an ascription of the Quan jin jing/Quan jin xue dao jing to Yong gong in the Fashang catalogue, Fajing should have mentioned it. In addition, similar to the case of Jingsheng, the claim that an ascription to a person in the Song period was in the Zhao catalogue does not make chronological sense. Thus, Hayashiya claims that all of the three ascriptions given by LDSBJ are groundless. Moreover, he points out that LDSBJ’s addition of two versions itself is doubtful, suggesting that two of the three versions are “ghost scriptures” that do not exist. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ in listing three Jinxue jing , stating that its source is LDSBJ. However, it does not include any of those texts in its catalogue of the extant canon 現藏錄. Hayashiya thinks that it is because the text was lost at the time of DZKZM due to the categorization of the text as an offshoot scripture 別生抄經 from the time of Yancong. KYL listed the same three titles as LDSBJ and DZKZM. Hayashiya infers that the text was found again at the time of KYL, since the one ascribed to Jingsheng is included in the group of extant repeat Hīnayāna translations 小乗經重譯 in the Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 of KYL. The other two titles are classified as lost repeat Hīnayāna translations. Hayashiya claims that he does not find any ground for these ascriptions by Zhisheng 智昇, except for the identity of the title “Jinxue jing ” with both that listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and that ascribed to Jingsheng. KYL records the length of the extant Jinxue jing as one sheet. According to Hayashiya, this is the same text as the Jinxue jing T798, with a length of one register. The style of T798 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, so KYL’s ascription to Jingsheng is incorrect. Hayashiya maintains that the correct and specific ascription of this text requires further research based on more comprehensive knowledge of styles of scriptural language. Thus, he concludes that, for now the Jinxue jing should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. 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. — 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 Jin xue jing 進學經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云勸進學道經; 17b8. 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 Jin xue jing 進學經 T798, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|