Text: 五陰喩經; 五陰譬喩經

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	五陰譬喩經; 五陰喩經 [Hayashiya 1941]
Date	[None]
Translator 譯	An Shigao, 安世高 [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. — 1323-1332	五陰喩經; 五陰譬喩經	Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: A He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: Fajing listed this text with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 (and with alternate titles He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 and Ju mo pi jing 聚沫譬經) as an offshoot text of the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經. Hayashiya claims that this text is an alternate translation of a text in SĀ 雜阿含 (T99), because it is older than the SĀ 雜阿含 translated by Guṇabhadra. Hence, the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 should have been recorded as such, and not as an offshoot text. Nonetheless, Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in listing this text as an offshoot text. Jingtai did not record the length of the text for this reason. Thus, it is unclear if the text was extant at Jingtai’s time or not. Still, all the catalogues down to Jingtai regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 as an anonymous scripture. LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: LDSBJ regarded this text, with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋 period without, but does not give any supporting evidence. DZKZM followed LDSBJ in this regard. KYL 開元錄: KYL lists three different texts related to the He zhong da ju mo jing, which are: the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高; the Shui mo suo piao jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the He zhong da hu mo jing as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Zhisheng regards the first two titles as extant, and the last one, the [second] He zhong da ju mo jing, as lost. Thus, KYL listed three texts with those titles, while all the other previous major catalogues showed only one. Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hīnayāna translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant. Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose. Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taishō (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SĀ 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經. Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105. From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows: There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM. KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SĀ 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text. Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are: The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost; The He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations is what is now shown mistakenly as the Wu yin piyu jing T105. This should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period; The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki Edit	Title: 五陰譬喩經; 五陰喩經 People: An Shigao, 安世高 (translator 譯)
No	[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 6a18	T0105; 五陰譬喻經; 河中大聚沫經五陰喩經; 五陰譬喩經	Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 五陰喻經: 五陰喻經一卷(舊錄云五陰譬喻經) Entry author: Michael Radich Edit

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. — 1323-1332

五陰喩經; 五陰譬喩經

Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows:

Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄:
A He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 is listed in this catalogue, and was extant at the time of Sengyou.

Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄:
Fajing listed this text with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 (and with alternate titles He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 and Ju mo pi jing 聚沫譬經) as an offshoot text of the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經. Hayashiya claims that this text is an alternate translation of a text in SĀ 雜阿含 (T99), because it is older than the SĀ 雜阿含 translated by Guṇabhadra. Hence, the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 should have been recorded as such, and not as an offshoot text. Nonetheless, Yancong and Jingtai followed Fajing in listing this text as an offshoot text. Jingtai did not record the length of the text for this reason. Thus, it is unclear if the text was extant at Jingtai’s time or not. Still, all the catalogues down to Jingtai regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing 河中大聚沫經 as an anonymous scripture.

LDSBJ 三寶紀 and DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄:
LDSBJ regarded this text, with the title Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經, as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 of the E. Jin 東晋 period without, but does not give any supporting evidence. DZKZM followed LDSBJ in this regard.

KYL 開元錄:
KYL lists three different texts related to the He zhong da ju mo jing, which are: the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as translated by An Shigao 安世高; the Shui mo suo piao jing as translated by Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭, and the He zhong da hu mo jing as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Zhisheng regards the first two titles as extant, and the last one, the [second] He zhong da ju mo jing, as lost. Thus, KYL listed three texts with those titles, while all the other previous major catalogues showed only one.

Among those three titles in KYL, the Wu yin piyu jing was already listed by Dao’an. In CSZJJ 出三藏記集, it was listed as the Wu yin yu jing 五陰喩經/Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 translated by An Shigao, with no other titles mentioned. It was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing also listed this text as an second or subsequent Hīnayāna translation, with the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing. Yancong followed Fajing in this regard. Jingtai showed the length of the text as two sheets 紙. LDSBJ also listed this text, although it did not show Shui mo suo piao jing as an alternate title. DZKZM showed Wu yin piyu jing as well, again with Shui mo suo piao jing as the alternate title. Based on these entries in the catalogues, Hayashiya claims that the Wu yin piyu jing of KYL refers to the same text listed by Sengyou, if not by Dao’an, with the same title, with some attributions added by the later catalogues. Whether or not they add the alternate title Shui mo suo piao jing, the catalogues agree that it is An Shigao's translation, and extant.

Hayashiya maintains that that this Wu yin piyu jing listed in a number of catalogues is the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 T105. This is because T105 has just about the same length as recorded in the catalogues. Jingtai, DZKZM and KYL recorded the length of the Wu yin piyu jing 五陰譬喩經 as two sheets. T105 is slightly shorter than two registers 段, but since roughly half of the text is verses, it would make one and a half registers if written in the manner of prose.

Hayashiya argues that T105 is not likely to be by An Shigao, for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary and tone of T105 are different from that of An Shigao (although they show that the text was composed in the Latter Han 後漢 period, or possibly in the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period). For example, where An Shigao would write 一時佛在, T105 says 一時佛遊, and where An Shigao would write 色, 痛痒, 思想, 生死, 識, T105 says 色, 痛, 想, 行, 識. Secondly, there is a strong suspicion that T105 is actually the He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and not the Wu yin piyu jing of CSZJJ. This is because T105 contains in its introductory part a passage that could be the source of the title He zhong da ju mo jing, while the Shui mo suo piao jing in the Taishō (T106) does not have any such passage, although it does have a passage that could be the source of its own title, Shui mo suo piao jing. In addition, the term 河中大聚沫 is not used anywhere in the corresponding text in SĀ 雜阿含. Thus, it is reasonable to think that T105 was originally titled 河中大聚沫經.

Hayashiya then considers whether the Shui mo suo piao jing 水沫所漂經 T106 is actually the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao, given that T105 is not. It is true that sometimes Shui mo suo piao jing is used as an alternate title of the Wu yin piyu jing, as for example in Fajing. However, Hayashiya concludes that T106 is not the Wu yin piyu jing of Dao’an’s list, either, because the vocabulary and tone of T106 are quite different from that of An Shigao. He also rejects the attribution of T106 to Zhu Tanwulan. The date of composition of this text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period, making it newer than T105.

From the above considerations, Hayashiya presents what he thinks is the most plausible scenario as follows:

There were initially three alternate translations of the Wu yin piyu jing: the Wu yin piyu jing itself, the He zhong da ju mo jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing. However, Dao’an directly knew only the Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao and the anonymous He zhong da ju mo jing, but did not see the Shui mo suo piao jing. Sengyou, by contrast, saw only the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing, and misunderstood the former to be An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the latter to be the He zhong da ju mo jing. Fajing inherited those mistakes, although he used "He zhong da ju mo jing" as an alternate title for the Shui mo suo piao jing, because the title "Shui mo suo piao jing" suited the content better. LDSBJ followed Fajing and also used "Shui mo suo piao jing" as the title, and newly classified it as translated by Tanwulan. This attribution is groundless and incorrect since the text was listed already by Dao’an. In short, the catalogues before KYL regarded the He zhong da ju mo jing as the same text as An Shigao's Wu yin piyu jing, and the Shui mo suo piao jing as the He zhong da ju mo jing, because CSZJJ had listed only the Wu yin piyu jing and the He zhong da ju mo jing, which were actually the He zhong da ju mo jing and the Shui mo suo piao jing respectively in Dao’an’s classification. Further, the He zhong da ju mo jing, viz., the Shui mo suo piao jing, was listed as an offshoot text by Fajing, not as an independent text, so the length of the text was not recorded in Jingtai and DZKZM.

KYL followed previous catalogues in classifying the Wu yin piyu jing = Dao'an's He zhong da ju mo jing as by An Shiago. However, Zhisheng listed the Shui mo suo piao jing as an extant alternate translation from SĀ 雜阿含, not an offshoot text, because LDSBJ ascribed it to Tanwyulan. In addition, he listed the He zhong da ju mo jing as a lost anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya shows two plausible reasons that made Zhisheng add this third title, "He zhong da ju mo jing": first, Zhisheng noticed that in the Shui mo suo piao jing, there were no passages that would naturally give the alternate title He zhong da ju mo jing; and secondly, it was too unreasonable to regard the He zhong da ju mo jing in Dao’an’s list and the Shui mo suo piao jing by Tanwulan as the same text.

Thus, Hayashiya identified the main causes of complicated relations between different titles above as the fact that Dao’an listed only two of the three texts, and that Sengyou saw also only two (a different pair from the one in Dao’an) and gave them wrong titles, which mistake affected the later catalogues considerably. Hayashiya concludes that the correct list of the texts and their attributions are:

The Wu yin piyu jing translated by An Shigao is lost;

The He zhong da ju mo jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations is what is now shown mistakenly as the Wu yin piyu jing T105. This should be classified as an extant anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period;

The Shui mo suo piao jing, omitted in Dao’an, is T106, shown in the present canon as Tanwulan's translation. It should be replaced by the real Shui mo suo piao jing, an extant anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

Title: 五陰譬喩經; 五陰喩經
People: An Shigao, 安世高 (translator 譯)

[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 6a18

Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 五陰喻經:

五陰喻經一卷(舊錄云五陰譬喻經)

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit