| Identifier | T0741 [T] |
| Title | 五苦章句經 [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. — 696-700 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 listed a Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經, with the alternate titles Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經 and Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu includes the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the “dubious” section 疑惑部 of its Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka catalogue 小乗修多羅藏錄. Yancong (仁壽録) followed Fajing by in listing the text in the group of dubious and inauthentic scriptures 疑僞經. According to Hayashiya, the reason for such these classifications by these catalogues is that the text is difficult to categorize, since it was called a jing 經 while containing some clear evidence of editing, such as the incoherence of the beginning (it starts with 世尊曰, unlike normal sūtras 經) and the ending (which contains the phrase 莫不歡喜、作禮而去), and the inclusion of a verse that does not match the explanation given in the preceding part. Hayashiya conjectures that it must have been difficult to decide whether to include the text in the group of sūtras 經 or in the “catalogue of writings and compilations post-dating the Buddha’s nirvāṇa” 佛滅度後撰集錄. Still, both Fajing and Yancong did not regard the text as an apocryphon 僞經, since neither of them included it in the “apocryphal and spurious” section 僞妄部. Jingtai also included the Wu ku zhangju jing五苦章句經 in the group of “sūtras dubious or spurious” 衆經疑惑, and did not record its length. However, KYL lists two Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經: one is extant and ascribed to Zhu Tanwulan 曇無蘭; while the other is lost and ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Accordingly, Hayashiya claims that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the section of catalogues of the extant canon 現藏錄 in KYL should be the one ascribed to Tanwulan. It is listed with a length of thirteen sheets and the alternate titles Zhutian wu ku jing 諸天五苦經, Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經, and Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經. Following KYL, the Taishō ascribes 五苦章句經 T741 to Tanwulan. This being so, Hayahshiya claims, the grounds of the ascriptions to Tanwulan and Jingsheng need to be examined. These ascriptions are were first made in LDSBJ, which influenced KYL via DZKZM. LDSBJ lists a Wu ku jing 五苦經 ascribed to Tanwulan, with Jingchu zuigai yule Fofa jing 淨除罪蓋娯樂佛法經, Wu dao zhangju jing 五道章句經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 as alternate titles; and also lists a Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng. Hayashiya points out that the Wu ku jing 五苦經 in LDSBJ is clearly the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 of Dao’an’s catalogue, judging from the alternate titles of the two, and that LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan is are generally quite unreliable in nature, because there are no texts that have been demonstrated to be as the work of Tanwulan. As for the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng, Hayashiya points out that the source that Fei Changfang 費長房 is supposed to have relied upon in making that ascription was the "separate catalogue" 別錄. However, as Hayashiya explained previously (660-668 of the same material), not only did the “separate catalogue” 別錄 often not include the ascription of a text, but also, since the “separate catalogue” 別錄 also influenced Fajing, Fajing would should have mentioned the ascription to Jingsheng before LDSBJ, if such ascription had been really given by the “separate catalouge”別錄. Moreover, it is chronologically impossible for any text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue to be the work of Jingsheng, and the textual analysis of all the other extant texts ascribed to Jingsheng by LDSBJ have proven that those ascriptions are incorrect. There is no reason, Hayashiya claims, to suspect that Changfang might be right only in this time regarding the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經. Indeed, the style of language of T741 is clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and hence the text cannot possibly be Jingsheng’s work. In addition, all the major catalogues except for LDSBJ and those influenced by it record only one Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經, the one listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Jingsheng is a “ghost scripture” that does not exist at all, being a fabrication by Changfang (who could not give a reliable ascription to the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in Dao’an’s catalogue, and instead made two groundless ascriptions instead, as he often does in similar cases). Subsequently, Hayashiya concludes that the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 ascribed to Tanwulan by KYL and the Taishō is the text listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, judging from its style of language and from the records of it in the catalogues prior to LDSBJ. The ascriptions to Tanwulan and to Jingsheng are both incorrect. Hence, the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 in the Taishō should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period. 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 Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 一名淨除罪蓋娛樂佛法[界 S]經或云五道章句經; 17c16. 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 ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 T741, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|