Text: T0743; 忠心正行經; 忠心政行經 ; Zhongxin jing 忠心經; 佛說忠心經

Summary

Identifier T0743 [T]
Title 佛說忠心經 [T]
Date 後漢 [Hayashiya 1941]
Unspecified Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935]
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).

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.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Hayashiya 1941]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 1124-1133　

Under the heading of Landa wang jing 藍達王經, Hayashiya deals with three titles in CSZJJ 出三藏記集. They are: the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄; the Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心政行經 in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄; and the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, classified as an unseen text. The first were extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya claims that the Mulian yinyuan jing is highly likely to be the same text as the Landa wang jing, because Sengyou did not see the text of the Mulian yinyuan jing, and the title is very similar to one of the alternate titles of the Landa wang jing, namely, the Mulian yinyuan gongde jing 目連因緣功徳經.

Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues after CSZJJ on those and related titles, and his conclusions about questions of ascription regarding each, are as follows:

Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu:
Fajing listed the Zhong xing zheng xing jing 忠心正行經, with the alternate title Landa wang jing, as an excerpt 抄 from the Liu du ji jing 六度集 (T152), so that Landa wang jing 藍達王經 appears to be a text also called Zhong xing zheng xing jing, and an offshoot text from T152.

The Landa wang jing 藍達王經 has not survived to the present, but it is quoted in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 [JLYX]. Hayashiya points out that there is no part in the extant T152 corresponding to the Landa wang jing as cited in JLYX. Even the name Landa wang 藍達王 appears nowhere in T152. Furthermore, the Landa wang section part in JLYX does not contain any part related to the title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Thus, Hayashiya judges that Fajing’s is mistaken to hold that the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing are the same text, and an excerpt 抄 from T152. Hayashiya conjectures that probably some person in the editorial team of Fajing had seen the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and thought it could also be called the Landa wang jing because the protagonist of the former is Mulian, and the latter has the alternate title Mulian yinyuan gongde jing.

Fajing did not list the Mulian yinyuan jing. This omission is reasonable, since it is probably the same text as the Landa wang jing, but that raises a different problem: it then appears as if Fajing has only one text in this group, viz. a single Landa wang jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing, whereas CSZJJ has two separate texts, viz. the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing. Hayashiya claims that the title in Fajing that corresponds to the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the CSZJJ is the Zhong xin jing 中心經, which Fajing lists as an anonymous scripture, because the title Zhong xin jing is not found in CSZJJ.

Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄:
Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and listed the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as a Hīnayāna offshoot text, giving Landa wang jing as an alternate title, and listed the Zhong xin jing 中心經 as a sole-witness Hīnayāna text. Jingtai notes that the length of the Zhong xin jing is five sheets 紙. Down to the time of Jingtai, the Zhong xin jing was extant, while it is not clear whether the Zhong xin zheng xing jing was extant or lost, since it was mistakenly regarded as an offshoot text. Both were considered anonymous.

LDSBJ 三寶記:
LDSBJ lists the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as different texts, and did not list the Zhong xin jing. Hayashiya claims that LDSBJ is right in separating the Landa wang jing and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, apparently in reliance upon Dao’an, although LDSBJ still considers the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from T152. LDSBJ classifies the Landa wang jing as translated by Zhi Qian 支謙, and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. Hayashiya rejects those attributions as groundless. He also shows textual evidence for his rejection as follows:

Hayashiya examines the surviving text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, viz., the Zhong xin jing 忠心經 T743, which is given as Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, and the the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 portion of the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 [as transmitted in JLYX? -- MR]. The vocabulary of T743 is quite archaic, probably of the Latter Han 後漢 period, and cannot be newer than the beginning of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. For example, "five skandahs" is translated 五賊, and the five individual skandhas are translated 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死 and 識. Also, the twelve nidānas are translated 癡, 行, 識, 名色, 六入, 栽, 痛, 愛, 受, 有, 生 and 死. Hence, the Zhong xin zheng xing jing cannot be Zhu Tanwulan’s translation, since he was active around the E. Jin 東晋 period. On the other hand, it is more difficult to determine the attribution of the Landa wang jing 藍達王經, since the text in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 might be just an excerpt from the real Landa wang jing 藍達王經. Nonetheless, judging from the text shown in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經, the vocabulary and tone are clearly different from Zhi Qian’s, and hence the text is not his composition.

DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄:
Following LDSBJ, DZKZM listed the Landa wang jing 藍達王經 as translated by Zhi Qian, and the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from the Liu du ji jing, translated by Zhu Tanwulan. Hayashiya points out that to regard the Zhong xin zheng xing jing as an offshoot text from T152 in this case is doubly mistaken, because the text that Fajing wrongly considered to be an offshoot text of T152/the Liu du ji jing was the Landa wang jing, which in turn was erroneously considered to have an alternate title Zhong xin zheng xing jing. By contrast, what LDSBJ and DZKZM show as an offshoot text from T152/the Liu du ji jing is supposed to be the Zhong xin zheng xing jing originally listed as an independent text by Dao’an. In any case, neither of the two texts is an offshoot text of T152/the Liu du ji jing.

KYL 開元錄:
KYL also listed the Landa wang jing as translated by Zhi Qian, and the Zhong xin jing, with the alternate title Zhong xin zheng xing jing, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan. Zhisheng then made another mistake, which was to list the Mulian yinyuan jing 目連因緣經, a title which actually refers to the Landa wang jing, as an anonymous scripture of the [Liu] Song 宋 period. Nonetheless, Zhisheng gets one thing right: he directly examined the text of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, and stated that there is no correspondence between the content of the Zhong xin zheng xing jing and that of T152/the Liu du ji jing.

KYL records the length of the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing as five sheets, the same length as the Zhong xin jing shown in Jingtai. This length is slightly more than four registers in the Taishō. T743 is about four and a half registers long. However, Hayashiya maintains that T743 has more spaces than usual between some lines and characters, so the text could be written in roughly four registers. Thus, it is certain that T743 is the Zhong xin jing in Jingtai, and the Zhong xin jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing of the KYL. This means also that the text is the Zhong xin zheng xing jing of CSZJJ.

Hayashiya concludes that the Landa wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations. As stated above, we can see part of this text today as quoted in JLYX. The Zhong xing jing/Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心經/忠心正行經/忠心政行經 T743 must be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. All the other mistaken entries related to these two texts, which are shown above, need be excised.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

[CSZJJ]  Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 29a12

In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T743 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4):

忠心政行經一卷(出六度集[v.l. + 經 M]或云忠心經舊錄有大忠心經小忠心經).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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

Edit

No

[Fei 597]  Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 70a6

The ascription of T743 to Tanwulan found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites Jiu lu for variations in the title.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Fajing 594]  Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 145b8

With a slightly variant title, 忠心正行, treated by Fajing as an excerpt from the Liu di ji jing 六度集 T152, with two alternate titles given in an interlinear note, and no ascription: 忠心正行經一卷(一名監[v.l. 藍 SYM]達王經一名目連功德經).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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. — 211-220

Sakaino argues that many of our extant ascriptions to Tanwulan were added by LDSBJ, and 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, and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single translator. 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). Sakaino also studies this pattern in application to other translators (or supposed translators) elsewhere in his work; see esp. 80-86 for a general analysis of the overall pattern. Tanwulan is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure, and in this case, it leads to the especially misleading consequence that Tanwulan looks as if he was a pioneer in the systematic introduction of proto-Tantra into China, because Fei Changfang chose to assign to him portions of Sengyou's lists that had tantric-sounding topics. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Sakaino points out that in CSZJJ, by contrast, only two works are ascribed to Tanwulan: the 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR] and the 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR], for which the ascription is carried in CSZJJ.

Sakaino states that LDSBJ only presents (supposed) sources for its ascriptions to Tanwulan in six cases. He discusses these sources for these cases. Most of the texts in question are not extant. Sakaino surmisaes that among these six texts, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR”] and the Xian jie qian Fo ming jing 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR] are correctly ascribed to Tanwulan, as source for them is CSZJJ, based on Dao’an.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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. — 80-86

Sakaino Kōyō gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題である); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ.

According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include:

- “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經;
- titles containing the word bodhisatva 菩薩;
- titles containing the names of the Buddha’s disciples;
- titles containing words such as 比丘, 比丘尼, 出家, 沙門;
- titles related to heavens;
- scriptures based upon analogies to or allegories about kings, princes, sons of householders, children, Brahmins, sages (*ṛṣi), women, householders, merchants, or animals;
- scriptures organised by numerical rubrics;
- scriptures related to hells;
- scriptures relating to samādhi or *dhyāna/chan;
- scriptures using as metaphors rivers, plants, trees, etc.;
- esoteric scriptures;

Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82).

Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82).

For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.]

In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyāna). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list:

23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha.

24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふべき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles.

17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyāna, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.]

The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Radich 2019]  Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841.

According to the abstract, Radich argues:

"Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts."

Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ):

七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19.
尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16, An Shigao 安世高, 52a15.
善生子經 T17, Zhi Fadu 支法度, 68a17-18.
開解梵志阿颰經 T20, Zhi Qian 支謙, 57c22.
寂志果經 T22, Tanwulan 曇無蘭, 69c5.
頂生王故事經 T39, Faju 法炬, 67a19.
鐵城泥犁經 T42, Tanwulan, 70a14.
閻羅王五天使者經 T43, Huijian 慧簡, 93b10.
離睡經 T47, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 64b21.
求欲經 T49, Faju, 67a2.
受歲經 T50, Dharmarakṣa, 64a23.
苦陰經 T53, Anon., E. Han 東漢, 55a25.
苦陰因事經 T55, Faju, 67c18.
樂想經 T56, Dharmarakṣa, 64b25.
阿耨風經 T58, Tanwulan, 69c9.
瞿曇彌記果經 T60, Huijian, 93b19.
瞻婆比丘經 T64, Faju, 67b16.
伏婬經 T65, Faju, 66c26.
魔嬈亂經 T66, Anon., E. Han, 55a2.
弊魔試目連經/魔嬈亂經 T67, Zhi Qian, 58b23.
數經 T70, Faju, 66c20.
尊上經 T77, Dharmarakṣa, 64b25.
鸚鵡經 T79, Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, 91c13.
意經 T82, Dharmarakṣa, 64a21.
應法經 T83, Dharmarakṣa, 64a22.
泥犁經 T86, Tanwulan, 70a15.
八關齋經 T89, Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲, 92c23.
鞞摩肅經 T90, Guṇabhadra, 91c13.
婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T91, An Shigao, 51b19.
十支居士八城人經 T92, An Shigao, 50c19.
相應相可經 T111, Faju, 67c15.
難提釋經 T113, Faju, 67c3.
波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經 T122, Faju, 67b2.
放牛經 = T123, Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 78c5.
四人出現世間經 T127, Guṇabhadra, 91c7.
婆羅門避死經 T131, An Shigao, 51b24.
頻毘[v.l. 婆 SY]娑羅王詣佛供養經 T133, Faju, 67a26.
長者子六過出家經 T134, Huijian, 93b23.
四未曾有法經 T136, Dharmarakṣa, 64b3.
四泥犁經 T139, Tanwulan, 70a8.
阿那邠邸化七子經 T140, An Shigao, 50c18.
佛母般泥洹經 T145, Huijian, 93b22.
阿難同學經 T149, An Shigao, 52a12.
阿含正行經 T151, An Shigao, 52a24.
大方便佛報恩經 T156, Anon., E. Han, 54b18.
大意經 T177, Guṇabhadra, 91c18.
前世三轉經 T178, Faju, 67c16.
異出菩薩本起經 T188, Nie Daozhen 聶道真, 66a20.
十二遊經 T195, *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽, 70b27-c2.
興起行經 T197, Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, 54b2.
雜譬喻經 T205, Anon., E. Han, 54b25.
猘狗經 T214, Zhi Qian, 58c7.
群牛譬經 T215, Faju, 67a6.
大魚事經 T216, Tanwulan, 69c5.
仁王般若波羅蜜經 T245, Kumārajīva, 78a23-24.
法華三昧經 T269, Zhiyan 智嚴, 112c27.
諸菩薩求佛本業經 T282, Nie Daozhen, 65c19.
無垢施菩薩應辯會 T310(33), Nie Daozhen, 66a2.
菩薩修行經 T330, Bo Fazu 白法祖, 66b4.
優填王經 T332, Faju, 67b3.
大乘方等要慧經 T348, An Shigao, 52b17.
寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T356, An Shigao, 52b10-11.
出阿彌陀佛偈 T373, Anon., E. Han, 55b24-25.
般泥洹後灌臘經 T391, Dharmarakṣa, 64a24.
迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T393, Tanwulan, 70a19.
八吉祥神呪經 T427, Zhi Qian, 58b8.
八陽神呪經 T428, Dharmarakṣa, 64b4.
文殊師利般涅槃經 T463, Nie Daozhen, 65c7.
三曼陀跋陀羅菩薩經 T483, Nie Daozhen, 66a1.
六菩薩亦當誦持經 T491, Anon., E. Han, 54c19.
阿難問事佛吉凶經 T492, An Shigao, 51c22.
摩訶迦葉度貧母經 T497, Guṇabhadra, 91c26.
羅云忍辱經 T500, Faju, 66c22.
沙曷比丘功德經 T501, Faju, 67c13.
佛為年少比丘說正事經 T502, Faju, 67b24.
比丘避女惡名欲自殺經 T503, Faju, 67c10.
犍陀國王經 T506, An Shigao, 52b5.
阿闍世王問五逆經 T508, Faju, 67a24.
阿闍世王授決經 T509, Faju, 67a2.
採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 T510, Tanwulan, 69c12.
長者子懊惱三處經 T525, An Shigao, 50c13.
越難經 T537, Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠, 65b21.
樹提伽經 T540a/b, Guṇabhadra, 91c17.
摩鄧女經 T551, An Shigao, 52a6.
內身觀章句經 T610, Anon., E. Han, 55b4.
法觀經 T611, Dharmarakṣa, 64a21.
身觀經 T612, Dharmarakṣa, 64a20.
佛印三昧經 T621, An Shigao, 52b15.
自誓三昧經 T622, An Shigao, 51b5.
父母恩難報經 T684, An Shigao, 51a13.
盂蘭盆經 T685, Dharmarakṣa, 64a27.
未曾有經 T688, Anon., E. Han, 55a28.
作佛形像經 T692, Anon., E. Han, 54c2.
摩訶剎頭經 T696, Shengjian 聖堅, 83c9.
罪業應報教化地獄經 T724, An Shigao, 51c18.
分別善惡所起經 T729, An Shigao, 51a23.
處處經 T730, An Shigao, 51b9.
十八泥犁經 T731, An Shigao, 51c16.
罵意經 T732, An Shigao, 51b8.
堅意經 T733, An Shigao, 52a2.
鬼問目連經 T734, An Shigao, 51c15.
分別經 T738, Dharmarakṣa, 64a28.
慢法經 T739, Faju, 66c20.
忠心經 T743, Tanwulan, 70a6.
罪福報應經 T747b, Guṇabhadra, 91c5.
十二品生死經 T753, Guṇabhadra, 91c4.
四輩經 T769, Dharmarakṣa, 64a24.
四品學法經 T771, Guṇabhadra, 91c8.
賢者五福德經 T777, Bo Fazu, 66b14.
十二頭陀經 T783, Guṇabhadra, 91b25.
出家緣經 T791, An Shigao, 51a8.
貧窮老公經 T797a/b, Huijian, 93b14.
弟子死復生經 T826, Juqu Jingsheng, 93a3.
懈怠耕者經 T827, Huijian, 93b12.
阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 T1013, Guṇabhadra, 92a8.
呪齒經 T1327, Tanwulan, 70b11.
華積陀羅尼神呪經 T1356, Zhi Qian, 58b7.
玄師颰陀所說神呪經 T1378b, Tanwulan, 70b9.
檀特羅麻油述經 T1391, Tanwulan, 70b3-70b4.
摩尼羅亶經 T1393, Tanwulan, 70a24, 70b1.
犯戒罪報輕重經 T1467, An Shigao, 51b1.
大比丘三千威儀 T1470, An Shigao, 50a23-24.
沙彌尼戒經 T1474, Anon., E. Han, 54c27.
戒消災經 T1477, Zhi Qian, 58a11.
菩薩受齋經 T1502, Nie Daozhen, 65c18.
分別功德論 T1507, Anon., E. Han, 54b19.
阿毘曇甘露味論 T1553, Anon., Cao Wei 曹魏, 60b18.
請賓頭盧法 T1689, Huijian, 93b17.
迦葉結經 T2027, An Shigao, 52b16.

This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Jiu lu CSZJJ]  Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145.

In his catalogue of anonymous texts in Facicle 4 of CSZJJ, Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for 110 titles, including items he states are extant, and also items he marks "presently missing". This shows that each such title, being listed in the Jiu lu, was extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. Texts among these which appear to possibly be extant are as follows, here listed alongside the ascriptions given in the present Taishō to the possibly corresponding texts (note that this comparison serves in several cases mainly to show how tenuous the T ascriptions must be, if the texts in question are indeed those listed in CSZJJ 4):

沙曷比丘功德[v.l. 德經SYM]一卷(舊錄云沙曷比丘經) T501, Faju
懈怠耕者經一卷(舊錄云懈怠耕兒[v.l. 見 M]經) T827, Huijian
善生子經一卷(舊錄云善生子一名異出六向拜經) T17, Zhi Fadu 支法度
鹽[v.l. 閻SYM]王五天使者經一卷(舊錄云[＊]鹽王五使者[v.l. 天使者SYM]經) T43, Huijian
恒水戒經一卷(舊錄云恒水經) T33, Faju
戒消災經一卷(舊錄云戒消伏) T1477, Zhi Qian
忠心政行經一卷(出六度集 或云忠心經舊錄有大忠心經小忠心經) T743, Tanwulan
十二因緣章經一卷(舊錄云十二因緣經), T1508?
十二遊經一卷(舊錄云十二由經) T195, *Kālodaka
七佛父母姓字經一卷(舊錄云七佛姓字經) T4, Anon, former Wei
摩竭王經一卷(舊錄云摩竭國王經) T129, Zhu Lüyan
四輩經一卷(舊錄云四輩弟子經或云四輩學經) T769, Dharmarakṣa

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Shi Tianchang 1998]  Shi Tianchang 釋天常. "Liu di ji yanjiu" 六度集研究. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies 中華佛學研究 2 (1998): 75-104. — 78-80

Shi Tianchang treats the Zhong xin zheng xing jing 忠心正行經 as part of a larger problem of titles/texts reported in traditional catalogues as excerpted from Kang Senghui's Liu du ji 六度集, which do not appear in the extant T152.

The Zhong xin zheng xing jing is reported in CSZJJ under the title 忠心政行經, as extant, and excerpted from the Liu du ji, with alternate titles 忠心經, which is recorded in the Jiu lu 舊錄 as existing in a larger and smaller version, T2145 (LV) 29a12. The text is treated by Fajing as a chao 抄 from the Liu du ji, with the alternate titles Landa wang jing 監[v.l. 藍 SYM]達王經 and Mulian gongde jing 目連功德經. Treatment in Yancong and Jingtai is similar. In LDSBJ, this title receives a hitherto unknown ascription to Tanwulan.

The Zhong xin jing 忠心經 T743 has a similar title. In KYL, Zhisheng identifies the text circulating under this title with the older text reportedly excerpted from the Liu du ji, but Tianchang holds that this identification was erroneous. He also holds that the ascription of T743 to Tanwulan in the present Taishō is also erroneous, since it is based upon the LDSBJ identification of the title with the roaming text excerpted from the Liu du ji. Tianchang adduces glosses to the text in the Yiqie jing yin yi and Kehong's lexicon; the items glossed appear in the same order in the present T743. Thus, the text Zhisheng had was, in Tianchang's opinion, unrelated to the text earlier reported as excerpted from the Liu du ji.

Tianchang also follows up reports about the title Landa wang jing in the catalogues. This text is reported in various catalogues. In CSZJJ, it is listed as an extant text, with two alternate titles: 目連因緣功德經 and 目連功德經. T2145 (LV) 19b14 (the title Zhong xin jing is here not mentioned). It is not carried in any of the Zhongjing mulu (Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai). LDSBJ ascribes it to Zhi Qian, and is followed by DTNDL and DZKZM. It is also excerpted in the Jing lü yi xiang, but by the time of Zhisheng's KYL, it is reported as lost. Tianchang argues that in theme and content, it does not fit with the overall plan of the Liu du ji. He concludes that if Fajing's report is correct, and Landa wang jing was an alternate title for the Zhong xin zheng xing jing, and the text was found in the Liu du ji, then it must have been added into the Liu du ji between Kang Senghui and the Sui.

However, Sengyou reports that two separate texts were extant—the Zhong xin zheng xing, and the Landa wang—and he identifies only the first as from the Liu du ji; he does not say anything about the identity of the two texts or titles. On this basis, Tianchang himself surmises that they were two separate texts, and the identification between the two is erroneous. However, he concludes that because the Zhong xin zheng xing is no longer extant, it is not possible to determine whether or not it was included in the original Liu du ji.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit