| Identifier | T310(19) [Nattier 2008] |
| Title | Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經, Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者會 [Nattier 2008] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | *Dharmamitra, 曇摩蜜多 [Schuster 1984] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 158-159 |
"Not a single text can reliably be credited to Kang Sengkai. While there well may have been such a monk living in north China during the Wei period, his name simply became a peg on which to hang the attribution of texts which are obviously of much later vintage." None of his texts are ascribed to him by Sengyou or Daoan, and Fajing only ascribes T310(19) to him out of the three texts that eventually came to bear his name. Internal evidence shows that even this text has a much later style, e.g. 如是我聞. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Schuster 1984] Schuster, Nancy. “Yoga-Master Dharmamitra and Clerical Misogyny in Fifth Century Buddhism.” The Tibet Journal 9, no. 4 (1984): 33-46. — 36 |
Only four texts are credited to *Dharmamitra in CSZJJ and GSZ: T619, T613?, T409 and T227. T564 and T310(19) are ascribed to *Dharmamitra in KYL. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Schuster 1984] Schuster, Nancy. “Yoga-Master Dharmamitra and Clerical Misogyny in Fifth Century Buddhism.” The Tibet Journal 9, no. 4 (1984): 33-46. — 36, 38, and n. 16. |
The Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者 T310(19) is ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 in the Taishō, but Schuster discusses it as a translation by *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多. Schuster’s basis for this is the fact that the text is ascribed to *Dharmamitra in KYL, and “conclusive arguments of Japanese scholars”, as summarised by Hirakawa Akira, “Shoki daijō kyōdan ni okeru toji ni imi,” Shūkyō kenkyū 153 (1957), p. 26. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hirakawa 1957] Hirakawa Akira 平川彰. “Shoki daijō kyōdan ni okeru tōji no imi 初期大乘教團における塔寺の意味.” Shūkyō kenkyū 宗教研究 153 (1957): 17-38. — 26, 36 n. 41, n. 42 |
The Ugraparipṛcchā included in the Ratnakūṭa 郁伽長者會 T310(19) is ascribed in the Taishō to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧. No text corresponding to T310(19) appears in CSZJJ. An Ugraparipṛcchā appears ascribed to Kang Sengkai from Fajing onwards, but under a different title. The ascription appears with the present title in KYL. Hirakawa writes that the style of T310(19) is late, certainly after Kumārajīva. Ōno Hōdō thought that it was after the Liu Song. Hirakawa refers to his own “Kan’yaku ritsuten no seikaku 漢譯律典の性格,” IBK 3 no. 2 (1954): 16; and Ōno Hōdō 大野法道, Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū 大乘戒經の研究, 213. 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. — 247 |
Sakaino points out that the ascription of the Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者經 in the Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經 T310(19) to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 is unreliable, agreeing with KYL, which also states that the ascription is incorrect. 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. — 241, 243-247 |
On Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (which Sakaino reconstructs *Saṁghavarman), Sakaino makes the following claims: GSZ states that four texts are to be ascribed to Kang Sengkai. It is unknown which four texts this refers to. KYL lists three titles (an Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經, cf. T310(19), a Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經, cf. T360, and a Karma in four recitations 四分雜羯磨, cf. T1432), and LDSBJ lists two. However, Sakaino claims that those ascriptions are unreliable. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 213 |
The Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 is now included in the Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經 as the 郁伽長者會 (T310 [19]). The ascription of the text to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 must be incorrect, as the vocabulary used belongs to the (Liu) Song period. It was GSZ that first recorded a translation of the Ugraparipṛcchā by Kang Sengkai. The first catalogue that reportedly recorded the same was the Zhu Fazu catalogue 竺道祖錄 (as cited in LDSBJ), followed by Fajing and all the other catalogues. KYL then included the scripture in T310. LDSBJ lists an Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 in two juan ascribed to *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多, citing the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄. Ōno states that given the vocabulary used in the text, this ascription might be correct for T310(19). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 183-184 |
It is not known where Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (*Saṃghavarman) was from. Kamata suggests that he might be from Sodgiana 康居国 as his name contains the ethnonym Kang 康. It is recorded that Kang Sengkai translated four texts including the Ugra-paripṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 T310(19). LDSBJ ascribes two scriptures to Kang Sengkai, the Ugra-paripṛcchā and the Wuliangshou (*Amitābha) jing 無量壽經 (*Sukhāvatīvyūha) T360. KYL records three titles ascribed to Kang Sengkai, Ugra-paripṛcchā, Wuliangshou jing, and the Si fen za jiemo 四分雜羯磨 T1432, all of which were extant in Zhisheng’s time (183). All three texts still carry the ascription to Kang Sengkai in T. Kamata maintains that all these ascriptions must be incorrect, on the following grounds (183-184): According to Kamata, there are three competing ascriptions for T360: a) Kang Sengkai, b) Dharmarakṣa , and c) Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 and Baoyun 寶雲. None of them has been proven correct to date. The ascription to Kang Sengkai was first given by LDSBJ, and accepted by succeeding catalogues. LDSBJ’s view is supposedly based on the Jin catalogue 晋世雜錄 by Zhu Daozu 竺道祖and the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄. The former catalogue was lost by the time of Fei, as Fei himself records. Kamata speculates that Fei probably learned about the record in those catalogues via some other catalogue(s). As CSZJJ does not record any scripture ascribed to Kang Sengkai, most modern scholars do not accept the ascription of T360 to Kang Sengkai. Kamata cites work by Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 (『佛教經典成立史論』, 法蔵館, 1946, 220;『中国浄土教理史』, 法蔵館, 1964, 40); Ōno Genmyō 小野玄妙 (『佛教經典総論』, 『佛書解説大辞典』別巻, 32-34); and Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達 (『原始浄土思想の研究』, 岩波書店, 1970, 62-64 ). The ascription of T310(19) to Kang Sengkai was rejected in KYL. Most modern scholars also reject this ascription. Kamata cites Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (『初期大乗佛教の研究』, 春秋社, 1968, 488-489). Kamata asserts that the ascription of T1432 (曇無德律部雜羯磨) to Kang Sengkai is also incorrect. Kamata states that some scholars have indeed doubted the very existence of Kang Sengkai, and suspect that his name actually refers to Kang Senghui 康僧會 of the Wei 呉 (Kamata cites Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, 『支那佛教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 241-242). Kamata himself holds that it may be a little far-fetched to deny the existence of Kang Sengkai altogether, since GSZ reports his life, but agrees that the ascriptions to him should be rejected (184). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2003] Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003. — 17 and n. 10 |
Nattier discusses briefly Hirakawa's hypothesis (Shoki daijō ni okeru tōji no imi 初期大乗における塔寺の意味, 1957) that the Ugra-paripṛcchā included in the Ratnakūṭa T310(19) is a translation mentioned in the tradition, thought lost, by Dharmamitra. Nattier herself takes the position that although this hypothesis is worth considering, further work is required before it can be regarded as established. She notes that Dharmamitra was first credited with a translation of the Ugra-paripṛcchā in LDSBJ; CSZJJ only ascribes four titles to him, and the Ugra-paripṛcchā is not among them. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Liu Zhe argues that the Ugra-paripṛcchā 郁伽長者會T310(19) should have been translated between the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century, since one-fifth of the entire scripture is accounted for by words appearing for the first time in the Three Kingdoms, the Western Jin Dynasty, and even after the Eastern Jin Dynasty (not counting repetitions). They refer to Liu Zhe 劉哲. “Cong ciyu jiaodu kan Yujia zhangzhe hui de fanyi shidai” 從詞語角度看《郁伽長者會》的翻譯時代. Xiandai yuwen 現代語文 9 (2020): 16–20. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|