|
No
|
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941.
— 930-938
|
|
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 is as follows:
Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録:
A Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 is listed as extant in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures and extant at the time of Sengyou.
CSZJJ 出三藏記集:
Sengyou also lists an Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 in the category of unseen texts. Although he did not see it, it is titled yichu 異出 in the source catalogue he used, and therefore, the text is highly likely to be different from the Shi shan shi e jing. Also, there is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄. Thus, Sengyou lists three alternate translations of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經. There is a possibility that the unseen Yichu shi shan shi e jing was the same text as one of the others, but it is difficult to determine the relation between that unseen text and the other two.
Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu:
Fajing listed the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as the same text, and did not list the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經. However, both the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing were extant at the time of Sengyou, and listed separately, so Sengyou and Fajing appear to disagree about the relation between the Shi shan shi e jing and the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. This issue is difficult to adjudicate, since both CSZJJ and Fajing contain mistakes. Hayashiya cannot find a reasonable explanation for the absence of the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in Fajing.
Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄:
Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing and made only a single entry for the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經. Yancong included the text in the group of Hīnayāna "offshoot texts" 別生抄, since the text available at the time of Yancong did not have the format usual for independent texts. Because of this, Jingtai did not show the length of the text. In any case, down to Jingtai, all the catalogues show the texts as anonymous.
LDSBJ 三寶記:
LDSBJ lists all of the three titles shown by Sengyou: a Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度, another Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 (referring to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 of CSZJJ) as translated by Tanwulan 曇無蘭, and a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高. Hayashiya rejects all of these attributions as groundless.
DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄:
DZKZM shows four entries for the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 and related titles: adding to the titles in LDSBJ another Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing 分別善悪所起經 as translated by Zhi Fadu 支法度. DZKZM states that the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is shown in LDSBJ, but LDSBJ shows the Shi shan shi e jing as his, but not a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, so Hayashiya concludes that this new entry on a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing by Zhi Fadu is redundant with the Shi shan shi e jing by Zhi Fadu.
KYL 開元錄:
KYL lists the three titles shown in LDSBJ, while ignoring DZKZM’s redundant fourth entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing. However, In the Korean edition of the Biefensheng zang lu 別分乗藏錄, Zhisheng 智昇 lists two Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, the one extant, and the other lost. Thus, there are four entries related to the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 in the Korean edition. Hayashiya explains this oddity as a simple mistake that Zhisheng 智昇 made when he found the text of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, which was once thought lost: Probably Zhisheng forgot to delete the entry on the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing as a lost text when he made another entry showing it as extant.
Taishō:
There is a Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 extant in the Taishō. Its vocabulary and tone are clearly of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the early W. Jin 西晋 period. The number of good things and bad given in that text are eleven each, rather than ten as the term "shi shan shi e" 十善十悪 suggests. Further, the phrase "shi shan shi e" does not appear in the text even once. Thus, Hayashiya speculates that, if Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing is an alternate title of either the Shi shan shi e jing or the Yichu shi shan shi e jing in CSZJJ, it is more likely that it would apply to the Yichu shi shan shi e jing, sincethe term "shi shan shi e" does not straightforwardly match the content of T729.
Hayashiya concludes that all attributions of translators to the different versions of the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 should be omitted, because the source of those attributions, viz., LDSBJ, gives no ground the attributions it provides. Accordingly, probably the Shi shan shi e jing 十善十悪經 listed in CSZJJ was an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, since it is listed on Dao’an’s list. The Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing T729 is probably of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or the W. Jin 西晋 period, judging from its vocabulary and tone. The title Yichu shi shan shi e jing may well just have been an alternate title of the Fenbie shan'e suoqi jing, but since there is no decisive evidence either way, Yichu shi shan shi e jing 異出十善十悪經 should be retained as an independent title. (And if, as LDSBJ states, this title really was included in Zhu Daozu's Wu catalogue 竺道祖呉錄, it would be classified as an anonymous scripture in the E. Jin 東晋 period or earlier.)
Entry author: Atsushi Iseki
Edit
|
|