|
No
|
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941.
— 907-910
|
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 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:
A Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou.
CSZJJ 出三藏記集:
CSZJJ records two more alternate translation of this text: a Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經, translated by Jiqu Jingsheng; and an anonymous Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. All three titles were extant at the time of Sengyou, and his claims that they were different are reliable.
Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu:
Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed Juqu Jingsheng's version only, and regarded the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text.
Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄:
Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing for the record of the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經. Jingtai records that the text was four sheets 紙 long.
Taishō:
The text recorded in Jingtai has been identified as the Fo mu bannihuan jing 佛母般泥洹經 T145, which is listed in the Taishō as a translation by Huijian 慧簡 of the (Southern) Song 宋 period. The vocabulary and tone of this text are clearly much older than that of Juqu Jingsheng. Furthermore, there is a separate text entitled the Da'aidao bannihuan jing T144, which is listed as translated by Bo Fazu 白法祖. This is a different text from T145, and also is old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hence, Hayashiya argues, Fajing is wrong in regarding the three titles in CSZJJ as referring to the same text.
LDSBJ 三寶記:
LDSBJ followed CSZJJ, not Fajing, by listing the three titles separately: a Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經, and two Fo mu bannihuan jing. However, it assigned different translators to the three texts without any grounds. The listed names are Bo Fazu 白法祖, Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 and Huijian 慧簡. Neither of the surviving two texts in the Taishō mentioned above is a work of any of these three figures. Thus, Hayashiya rejects all of those attributions.
DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 and KYL 開元錄:
DZKZM and KYL adopted LDSBJ’s descriptions and classified a text of four sheets in length – which had been called the Da'aidao bannihuan jing 大愛道般泥洹經 – as Huijian’s translation, but also re-named it the Fomu bannihuan jing. Also, DZKZM and KYL listed a newly-found version that was seven sheets long as the Da'aidao bannihuan jing translated by Bo Fazu. Both attributions are incorrect.
Hayashiya claims that the history of attributions given to the three texts titled Da'aidao bannihuan jing and two entitled Fo mu bannihuan jing in CSZJJ is highly complex, due to different mistakes and misunderstandings made by different catalogues. For detailed examination of the relation between those three titles, Hayashiya refers to his own 大愛道般泥洹經異譯經類の硏究, a chapter in Hayashiya 1945. Here, Hayashiya summarises that work as follows: All three texts listed in CSZJJ were extant at the time of Sengyou. Only the Fomu bannihuan of Juqu Jingsheng went missing, and the other two are extant today. Among the surviving two, viz., T144 and T145, it is yet to be determined which one was the Da'aidao bannihuan jing and which was the anonymous Fo mu bannhuan jing. Hence, at this point, both of them should be recorded simply as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier.
Entry author: Atsushi Iseki
Edit
|
|