| Identifier | T397(17) [Nattier 2008] |
| Title | 十方菩薩品, 五十校計經 [Nattier 2008] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | An Shigao, 安世高 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — s.v., Vol. 7, 477-483 (Hasuzawa Seijun 蓮澤成淳) |
It is recorded that Sengjiu 僧就 of the Sui 隋 period added additional texts to *Dharmakṣema's 曇無讖 version of the Saṃnipāta. Sengjiu's edition is called the 58-juan or the 60-juan Saṃnipāta. Hasuzawa specifies the texts added newly later as 日藏經 T397(14) They are classified as Narendrayaśas's 那連提耶舍 translation in the earlier version of the Korean Tripiṭaka, but after proofreading 校正, T397(17) was re-classified as An Shigao's translation in the same canon. CSZJJ and some other major catalogues also record the same text as An Shigao's translation, while not listing the text as one of the alternate translations of the Saṃnipāta. Thus, Hasuzawa claims that it is safe to see the T397(17) as An Shigao's translation, and that this indicates that at least part of the Saṃnipāta was translated as early as in the second century. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 56-59 |
[Note that Nattier 56 ff. several times incorrectly gives the number of this text as T397(13), following T itself, which gives the title 十方菩薩品第十三 --- MR.] This text is ascribed to 那連提耶舍 in the canon, but to An Shigao in SYM. Nattier argues on internal grounds that the language is too anomalous for it to be a genuine An Shigao work. Before Nattier, Shizutani (1974): 233-237 discussed the work, taking it to be by An Shigao (Nattier criticises Shizutani's views, 56 n. 103); and the work was also discussed by Deleanu (1993): 43-44. Nattier argues further that the style of the work is very similar to Lokakṣema. She proposes that it "was produced in a community whose members considered themselves to be disciples (or descendants of disciples) of An Shigao, but who also had access to translations produced by Lokakṣema's community;" "We can say with confidence...that the Wushi jiaoji jing is not the work of An Shigao himself." 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. — 66-68 |
According to Sakaino, the 五十校計經 T397(17) was first ascribed to An Shigao, but the text was later incorporated into the 大方等大集經 T397, and as such, ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Sakaino says that the text is indeed *Lokakṣema’s work, not An Shigao’s nor Zhi Qian’s (he suspects the latter, it seems, because of an entry in CSZJJ that gives the alternate title 明度五十校計經, 6a14, where 明度 is a Zhi Qian term). Sakaino briefly suggests that the terminology and style of the text place it close to the so-called Weiri za na jing 惟日雜難經 T760 (which Sakaino says should correctly be called Weiyue na jing 惟曰難經), where he takes 惟曰 as a translation of *vaipulya), and since he takes T760 also as a *Lokakṣema work this is the main grounds for his reascription of T397(17). 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. — 600-602 |
Sakaino agrees with a popular view that the Shifang pusa pin 十方菩薩品 (T397[17]) was the Wushi jiaoji jing 五十校計經 ascribed to An Shigao, retitled and added to the *Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 by Sengjiu 僧就. In the extant T397, this text is placed at the end, and ascribed to Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍. Sakaino asserts that the content and vocabulary indicate that it is an old translation and the ascription to Narendrayaśas is incorrect . According Sakaino, no explanation has been offered as to why Sengjiu retitled the text and added it to T397. Sakaino speculates that he perhaps did so on instruction from Narendrayaśas or Jñānagupta/Jinagupta 闍那崛多. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. — vol. 13 394 n. 4 |
大方等大集經卷第五十九＝佛說明度五十校計經卷上【宋】【元】【明】【麗乙】【宮】【聖】 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 149-154 |
|
Kamata presents a list of thirty-five titles in forty-one juan ascribed to An Shigao in CSZJJ (claimed by Sengyou to be thirty-four titles in forty juan, list on 150-152). Kamata states that twenty of those thirty-five texts are extant today, among which four (安般守意經 T602, 陰持入經 T603, 人本欲生經 T14, and 大道地經 T607) are considered to be genuine An Shigao works. T602 has three prefaces written respectively by Kang Senghui 康僧會, Dao’an, and Xie Fu 謝敷, while T603, T14, and T607 each have a preface by Dao’an. Kamata maintains that those prefaces establish the ascriptions to An Shigao (149-152). Kamata cites Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, “安世高譯の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyō kenkyū 佛教研究 1 (1927): 152, who held that, based on the examination of the vocabulary commonly used in those four scriptures, the following thirteen scriptures are also genuine An Shigao works: 阿毘曇五法經 T1557, 十報經 T13, 普法義經 T98, 漏分布經 T57, 四諦經 T32, 七處三觀經 T150A, 九横經 T150B, 八正道經 T112, 五十校計經 T397(17), 流攝經 T31, and 是法非法經 T48. The terms Hayashiya paid particular attention in making this claim include一時佛在、聞如是、苦習尽道、直見、直語、直行、五陰、痛癢、思想、and 細滑. Kamata states that the number of An Shigao’s translation texts increased in the catalogues after CSZJJ, to thirty-five in Fajing, 176 in LDSBJ, thirty-two in Yancong, 172 in DTNDL, and ninety-six in KYL. The Taishō ascribes fifty-five scriptures to An Shigao. According to Kamata, it is generally thought that seventeen titles of the fifty-five in the Taishō are genuinely An Shigao’s work, the other ten are suspicious, and the remaining twenty-eight are not An Shigao’s (153-154). 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. — 298 |
Ōno discusses a “colophon to the Mahāsaṃnipāta [compiled] after critically scrutinising [the text]” 大集經校正後序 (originally found in K but missing from SYM, today carried at the end of the first fascile of the text in T, T397 [XIII] 8b3-c28), which criticises “six faults 六失” in the structure of the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經, based on the views of Zhisheng. The fifth and sixth of these supposed faults are that the Jiaoji jing校計經 = T397(17) was added in China, and the ascription of T397(17) to Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍. Ōno states that 大集經校正後序 is correct in rejecting this ascription. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Greene (2017)] Greene, Eric. "Doctrinal Dispute in the Earliest Phase of Chinese Buddhism—Anti-Mahāyāna Polemics in the Scripture on the Fifty Contemplations." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 40 (2017): 63-109. |
Ascribed to An Shigao in Dao’an’s and Sengyou’s catalogues, the 五十校計經 Wushi jiaoji jing T397(17) is often erroneously regarded as lost by modern scholars because in the Taishō canon it is hidden in the Ratnakūṭa collection 大方等大集經 T397 under a different title, although it is in fact preserved as a separate individual text in all the woodblock-printed editions of the Chinese Buddhist canon, including the Koryǒ canon. Based on analysis of the linguistic style and doctrinal content of the text, Greene argues that T397(17) is very likely one of the earliest so-called Chinese Buddhist “apocrypha,” i.e. Buddhist texts composed in Chinese from scratch. Furthermore, it is the only known extant text in the entire Buddhist literature that explicitly criticizes (and eventually invalidates) the bodhisatva path. However, rather than simply casting T397(17) as an anti-Mahayānā text, did as Shizutani Masao 静谷正雄, Greene suggests we understand the polemics in the text as the result of its author(s)’ attempt to reconcile the two earliest strands of Buddhist teachings in China known to us: the mainstream teachings left by An Shigao and the Mahāyāna teachings left by Lokakṣema. Rather than completely rejecting the “bodhisatva path,” the T397(17) keeps the label but its definition of the correct path is essentially to cut off all desires and rebirths in this very lifetime, in other words, what usually is known as the arhat path in mainstream Buddhism. Since Lokakṣema’s group postdates An Shigao by almost a century, Greene deduces the text was produced by/in an intellectual community that was familiar with both. Given the striking parallels between T397(17) and works by the so-called “An Shigao school” active in the Wu kingdom, such as the Yin chi ru jing zhu 陰持入經註 T1694 and the Shi'er men jing 十二門經, Greene suggests their group as the most likely candidate for the authorship of the text [note, however he also qualifies this argument with the possibility that the text could be a hybrid of translation and commentary/”apocrypha”]. Among these parallels, the most notable is perhaps the doctrinal oddity of linking the sense organ of the mouth to both taste and speech/words (語言) as its objects. Whereas taste alone is consistently listed as the object corresponding to mouth in Indian Buddhist texts, pre-Buddhist Chinese texts often link speech to mouth in comparable rubrics of sense organs. Additionally, Greene suggests that another text, the Pusa neixi liu boruomi jing 菩薩內習六波羅蜜經 T778, shares this doctrinal anomaly with these texts, and also evinces attempts at reconciling teachings typical of An Shigao’s and Lokakṣema’s groups. Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
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. — 4 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang argues that a transcription of the word nirvāṇa 般泥洹 in the Shifang pusa pin 十方菩薩品T397(17) is not found in translations reliably ascribed to An Shigao. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新. “Fojiao ciyu de shijian niandai yu keyi Fojing de jianbie” 佛教詞語的始見年代與可疑佛經的鑒別. Hefei shifan xueyuan xuebao 合肥師範學院學報 4 (2016): 8–10. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|