Text: 瓶沙王經

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	瓶沙王經 [Hayashiya 1941]
Date	西晋 [Hayashiya 1941]
Translator 譯	Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941]

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 875-883	瓶沙王經	A Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's text of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya argues that the text once existed (unlike a number of other texts with similar titles), but points out that this text was already lost in Sengyou’s time. The argument is as follows. The Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 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 Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fujiasha wang jing as an alternate title for the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing. The text was classified as an alternate translation from the Madhyāgama 中阿含 T26. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in this regard. DTNDL 内典錄 records the text in the same manner with title as either Pingsha wang wu yuan jing or Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, while showing the length of the text as seven sheets 紙. Hayashiya maintains that the text of the Fujiasha wang jing/Pingsha wang wu yuan jing was extant from Sengyo’s time down to the time of DTNDL, and there do not appear to be any other alternate versions. Apart from those catalogues, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists a Fujiasha wang jing or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Zhi Qian’s translation, a Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 translation, and yet another Pingsha wang wu yuan jingas Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translation. Hayashiya then clarifies where those two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing came from. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, a Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 (var. Pingsha wang jing 蓱沙王經, 三本=SYM) is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録, and a Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 (Liusha wang jing 流沙王經, 三本=SYM) in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. LDSBJ 三寶記 uses the character ping 蓱 for Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translations, distinguishing them from the alternate title of Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, viz., Pingsha wang wu yuan jing “萍”沙王五願經. Hayashiya argues that the texts that LDSBJ regards as by Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong 釋嵩公 are likely to be the same ones listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue fo alternate scriptures from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録 and the assorted catalogue of anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, since the titles of those in the "Liang" catalogue also avoid the character ping 萍, which is used in the alternate title of the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, i.e., 萍沙王五願經. The characters ping 萍, ping 洴 and ping 蓱 are all used to express the sound bim- in the name of Bimbisāra, so any difference between those characters does not imply a difference in the original texts. Hayashiya points out further that, judging from the content of T511, the text could equally be called 萍沙王經, 萍沙王五願經 or 弗迦沙王經. As such, we can reasonably expect that the content of the Fujiasha wang jing in Dao’an’s list, that of the Pingsha wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue, and that of the Pingsha wang jing the "assorted anonymous" catalogue were actually the same. Especially, both the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 were lost at the time of Sengyou, and he listed them as different texts without seeing the texts, so it is highly likely that the two were indeed the same text. On the other hand, the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 must be different, since they are listed as different by Dao’an, who always checks the text directly. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as an anonymous scripture, separately from the Fujiasha wang jing (or the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經). This indicates that Fajing also thought that the Fujiasha wang jing and the Pinsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 were different. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai recorded the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as a lost text, so the text has been lost since the Sui 隋 period. Returning to LDSBJ, the text it classifies as Zhi Qian’s translation, under the title Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, must be the Fujiasha wang jing of Dao’an’s list, because Fei Changfang 費長房 specifies it as such, and because the title Fujiasha wang jing had been consistently used to refer to the text in Dao’an’s list in previous catalogues. As for the other two tiles in LDSBJ, one of the two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing---one of which is ascribed to Tanwulan, the other to Shi Songgong---must have been intended to be the one in Sengyou’s "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, and hence it should be omitted. However, it is not clear which of these two texts in LDSBJ was intended to be the one in Sengyou's 失譯雜經錄. In any case, LDSBJ’s ascription to the two translators is clearly unreliable, when probably there was only one text extant. Moreover, Fei does not provide any support for that ascription. In his comment on the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 stating that it is Shi Songgong's translation, Fei writes as if he is relying upon the Zhao catalogue 趙錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, but neither of those catalogues states that text is Shi Songgong's translation (Hayashiya here refers to Part Four of his own Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for further examinations of LDSBJ’s groundless references to the Zhao 趙錄 and Shixing catalogues 始興錄). Thus, Hayashiya argues, LDSBJ’s claims that there are two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing translated by Tanwulan and Shi Songgong should be ignored. Next, out of the Pingsha wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録 and the Pingsha wang jing in his "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, the text in the Liang catalogue has a reliable record, and should be kept as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. As for the Fojiasha wang jing, since LDSBJ suddenly claims that the text was Zhi Qian’s translation while all the previous catalogues recorded it as anonymous, so it is also clear that LDSBJ is unreliable and should be ignored. However, LDSBJ influenced DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also lists the Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 as Zhi Qian’s translation, and the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 as Shi Songgong's translation, although it omitted the text supposedly translated by Tanwulan. It is not at all clear which text DZKZM claims was translated by Zhi Qian and which by Shi Songgong. Moreover, DZKZM listed the Fojiasha wang jing or Pingsha 萍沙 wang wu yuan jing as a lost text, while regarding the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing as extant. While DZKZM lists just two of the three titles shown in LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists all of them. Furthermore, KYL adds the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing as a separate anonymous scripture of the Liang 梁 period, whereas it was previously listed in Dao'an's "Liang" [NB: 凉!] catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya points out that probably Zhisheng 智昇 did not notice that the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing ascribed to Tanwulan or Shi Songgong was precisely the text that had been classified as the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. The Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 followed KYL by listing the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing separately from the three titles previously shown by LDSBJ. Since only one of the two Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing must have been the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録, and when a Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing is listed separately, the two entries on the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing should be deleted. The Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing itself should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Former Liang 前凉 period. On the other hand, the text that LDSBJ wrongly ascribed to Zhi Qian was continuously extant, without any alternate versions noted, despite the varying attributions given to it by different catalogues. That text is the Pingshan wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 T511. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya also mentions that the title Fojiasha wang jing refers to this same T511, since there is no separate text recorded in any catalogue after CSZJJ 出三藏記集. Hayashiya concludes that, although there are a number of entries listed separately in the catalogues with the title of Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 or something similar, most such entries are mistaken. The only ones of these texts that actually existed were T511, a.k.a. Fojiasha wang jing, and the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing. The former has survived, while the latter has been lost since the time of Sengyou. Both texts should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki Edit	Title: 瓶沙王經 People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯) Date: 西晋

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 875-883

瓶沙王經

A Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's text of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya argues that the text once existed (unlike a number of other texts with similar titles), but points out that this text was already lost in Sengyou’s time. The argument is as follows.

The Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 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 Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, and was extant in the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Fujiasha wang jing as an alternate title for the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing. The text was classified as an alternate translation from the Madhyāgama 中阿含 T26. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in this regard. DTNDL 内典錄 records the text in the same manner with title as either Pingsha wang wu yuan jing or Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, while showing the length of the text as seven sheets 紙. Hayashiya maintains that the text of the Fujiasha wang jing/Pingsha wang wu yuan jing was extant from Sengyo’s time down to the time of DTNDL, and there do not appear to be any other alternate versions.

Apart from those catalogues, LDSBJ 三寶記 lists a Fujiasha wang jing or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Zhi Qian’s translation, a Pingsha wang wu yuan jing as Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 translation, and yet another Pingsha wang wu yuan jingas Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translation. Hayashiya then clarifies where those two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing came from. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, a Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 (var. Pingsha wang jing 蓱沙王經, 三本=SYM) is listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録, and a Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 (Liusha wang jing 流沙王經, 三本=SYM) in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. LDSBJ 三寶記 uses the character ping 蓱 for Tanwulan's 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong's 釋嵩公 translations, distinguishing them from the alternate title of Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, viz., *Ping*sha wang wu yuan jing “萍”沙王五願經. Hayashiya argues that the texts that LDSBJ regards as by Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 and Shi Songgong 釋嵩公 are likely to be the same ones listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue fo alternate scriptures from the Liang region 新集安公凉土異經録 and the assorted catalogue of anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, since the titles of those in the "Liang" catalogue also avoid the character ping 萍, which is used in the alternate title of the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經, i.e., 萍沙王五願經.

The characters ping 萍, ping 洴 and ping 蓱 are all used to express the sound bim- in the name of Bimbisāra, so any difference between those characters does not imply a difference in the original texts. Hayashiya points out further that, judging from the content of T511, the text could equally be called 萍沙王經, 萍沙王五願經 or 弗迦沙王經. As such, we can reasonably expect that the content of the Fujiasha wang jing in Dao’an’s list, that of the Pingsha wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue, and that of the Pingsha wang jing the "assorted anonymous" catalogue were actually the same. Especially, both the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 洴沙王經 were lost at the time of Sengyou, and he listed them as different texts without seeing the texts, so it is highly likely that the two were indeed the same text. On the other hand, the Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 and the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 must be different, since they are listed as different by Dao’an, who always checks the text directly. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as an anonymous scripture, separately from the Fujiasha wang jing (or the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經). This indicates that Fajing also thought that the Fujiasha wang jing and the Pinsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 were different. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai recorded the Pingsha wang jing 瓶沙王經 as a lost text, so the text has been lost since the Sui 隋 period.

Returning to LDSBJ, the text it classifies as Zhi Qian’s translation, under the title Fujiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 or Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 萍沙王五願經, must be the Fujiasha wang jing of Dao’an’s list, because Fei Changfang 費長房 specifies it as such, and because the title Fujiasha wang jing had been consistently used to refer to the text in Dao’an’s list in previous catalogues. As for the other two tiles in LDSBJ, one of the two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing---one of which is ascribed to Tanwulan, the other to Shi Songgong---must have been intended to be the one in Sengyou’s "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, and hence it should be omitted. However, it is not clear which of these two texts in LDSBJ was intended to be the one in Sengyou's 失譯雜經錄. In any case, LDSBJ’s ascription to the two translators is clearly unreliable, when probably there was only one text extant. Moreover, Fei does not provide any support for that ascription. In his comment on the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 stating that it is Shi Songgong's translation, Fei writes as if he is relying upon the Zhao catalogue 趙錄 and the Shixing catalogue 始興錄, but neither of those catalogues states that text is Shi Songgong's translation (Hayashiya here refers to Part Four of his own Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for further examinations of LDSBJ’s groundless references to the Zhao 趙錄 and Shixing catalogues 始興錄). Thus, Hayashiya argues, LDSBJ’s claims that there are two Pingsha wang wu yuan jing translated by Tanwulan and Shi Songgong should be ignored.

Next, out of the Pingsha wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録 and the Pingsha wang jing in his "assorted anonymous" catalogue 失譯雜經錄, the text in the Liang catalogue has a reliable record, and should be kept as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. As for the Fojiasha wang jing, since LDSBJ suddenly claims that the text was Zhi Qian’s translation while all the previous catalogues recorded it as anonymous, so it is also clear that LDSBJ is unreliable and should be ignored.

However, LDSBJ influenced DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. DZKZM also lists the Fojiasha wang jing 弗迦沙王經 as Zhi Qian’s translation, and the Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 as Shi Songgong's translation, although it omitted the text supposedly translated by Tanwulan. It is not at all clear which text DZKZM claims was translated by Zhi Qian and which by Shi Songgong. Moreover, DZKZM listed the Fojiasha wang jing or Pingsha 萍沙 wang wu yuan jing as a lost text, while regarding the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing as extant.

While DZKZM lists just two of the three titles shown in LDSBJ, KYL 開元錄 lists all of them. Furthermore, KYL adds the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing as a separate anonymous scripture of the Liang 梁 period, whereas it was previously listed in Dao'an's "Liang" [NB: 凉!] catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. Hayashiya points out that probably Zhisheng 智昇 did not notice that the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing ascribed to Tanwulan or Shi Songgong was precisely the text that had been classified as the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in Dao'an's "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録. The Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄 followed KYL by listing the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing separately from the three titles previously shown by LDSBJ. Since only one of the two Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing must have been the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing in the "Liang" catalogue 新集安公凉土異經録, and when a Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing is listed separately, the two entries on the Pingsha 蓱沙 wang wu yuan jing should be deleted. The Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing itself should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Former Liang 前凉 period.

On the other hand, the text that LDSBJ wrongly ascribed to Zhi Qian was continuously extant, without any alternate versions noted, despite the varying attributions given to it by different catalogues. That text is the Pingshan wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 T511. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly that of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya also mentions that the title Fojiasha wang jing refers to this same T511, since there is no separate text recorded in any catalogue after CSZJJ 出三藏記集.

Hayashiya concludes that, although there are a number of entries listed separately in the catalogues with the title of Pingsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經 or something similar, most such entries are mistaken. The only ones of these texts that actually existed were T511, a.k.a. Fojiasha wang jing, and the Pingsha 瓶沙 wang jing. The former has survived, while the latter has been lost since the time of Sengyou. Both texts should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

Title: 瓶沙王經
People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)
Date: 西晋