| Identifier | T0745 [T] |
| Title | 佛說雜藏經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Faxian, 法顯 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Faxian, 法顯 [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 |
[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 |
|
|
|
No |
[de Jong 1981] de Jong, Jan Willem. "Fa-hsien and Buddhist Texts in Ceylon." JPTS 9 (1981): 105-116. — 105-107 |
De Jong notes that the title has been variously reconstructed: *Saṃyuktasañcaya-piṭaka (Legge), *Saṃyuka-piṭaka (Kolmaš), *Kṣudraka-sūtra (HBGR Répertoire). He gives a summary of the contents of the text. “The stories told by the seventeen pretas may have been part of a Pretavastu and this probably explains the title *Kṣudrakapiṭaka. The story of King Udayana does not seem to occur elsewhere....In any case, there is no reason to doubt that this text was brought back from Ceylon by [Faxian] and translated by him.” De Jong examines the small number of transliterations in the text, and concludes that most were already in use in China, making it impossible to determine on their basis the language of the source text. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 534-535 |
The last part of the Fo guo ji 佛國記 contains a sentence reading 夏坐訖法顯離諸師久欲趣長安。但所營事重。遂便南下向都。就禪師出經律藏; T2085 (LI) 866b15-17. Sakaino reads this sentence to mean that after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends again, but decided to go to Jiankang 建康 instead because Buddhabhadra, a prominent translator of scriptures, was there, and it was more important to contribute to the diffusion of the Dharma. Sakaino infers that the translation work of the texts ascribed to Faxian was actually done by Buddhabhadra, and Faxian’s role in translating was rather small. Those texts were ascribed/co-ascribed to Faxian out of respect to him as the one who brought the original to China. Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of texts related to Faxian. For example, T1425 (ascribed today to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (following CSZJJ’s general policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work). On the other hand, LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra, although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯. 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. — 534-535 |
Sakaino reads a sentence in the last part of the Foguo ji 佛國記 (夏坐訖法顯離諸師久欲趣長安。但所營事重。遂便南下向都。就禪師出經律藏 (T2085 [LI] 866b15-17) as describing the situation that, after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends, but decided to go to Jiankang 建康 instead, because Buddhabhadra, a prominent translator of scriptures, was there, and it was more important to contribute to the diffusion of the Dharma than to go to Chang'an. From this understanding, Sakaino infers that the translation work of the texts ascribed to Faxian was actually done by Buddhabhadra, and Faxian’s role in translating was rather small. Those texts were ascribed/co-ascribed to Faxian out of respect to him as the one who brought the original to China. Then Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of those texts related to Faxian. For example, the 僧祇律 (摩訶僧祇律 T1425 ascribed to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (as it is CSZJJ’s policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work), while LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra (although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|