| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | [None] |
| Date | [None] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yes |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 660-668 |
|
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles found in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭. He focuses on ten out of fourteen such ascriptions, since the other four are discussed elsewhere (where Hayashiya argues that they are incorrect). The titles of the ten texts in LDSBJ are as follows (Taishō title, if it differs, is noted separately; followed by Dao’an’s title; alternate titles and notes omitted for simplicity): Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing 阿難多洹羅云母經 [Luoyun mu jing 羅云母經] The other four titles discussed by Hayashiya elsewhere in the same work (Kyōroku kenkyū) are: Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, Shi shan shi e jing 十善十惡經, Anan nian Mile jing 阿難念彌勒經, and Pinsha wang wu yuan jing 蓱沙王五願經. Among these four, Hayashiya points out that the Sanshiqi pin jing (one of four texts referred to by the same title ) was composed 撰述 by Tanwulan, not translated by him (821-828). The other three are “ghost scriptures,” fabricated by Fei Changfang 費長房 to add to existing entries with the same or similar titles. Hayashiya states that those four cases give us a reason to suspect the validity of LDSBJ’s record of the other ten titles. Hayashiya point out that, first, since Dao’an’s catalogue generally collects translated scriptures of or before the W. Jin 西晋 period, any texts included in the catalogue should not be works of Tanwulan, who flourished during the E. Jin 東晋. Still, he claims that there may be some exceptional cases, so it is better to examine each case separately, firstly by investigating the grounds for those ascriptions, and secondly by evaluating the writing style of language of those scriptures. Hayashiya also asserts that Fei Changfang does not show any convincing grounds for those ascriptions to Tanwulan. Hayashiya makes this point by rejecting two sources that Fei mentions in LDSBJ. First, LDSBJ cites the “old catalogue” 舊錄 as the source of the ascription of four of the ten titles, namely Guowang Bulixianni shi meng jing, Zi’ai jing, Qi meng jing, and Hediao anahan jing. However, Hayashiya points out that the “old catalogue” focuses on showing the titles of scriptures and the sources of their alternative titles, so it should not have anything to do with ascriptions to Tanwulan. Second, according to Hayashiya, Fei suggests that most of the ascriptions to Tanwulan are based on the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of Song scriptures” 宋時衆經別錄. Hayashiya maintains that this claim of Fei's is untrue for the following three reasons: 1) Like the old catalogue, the “separate catalogue” does not aim to provide ascriptions; 2) Since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources for Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed more than one hundred texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing; and 3) Although Sengyou must have seen the “separate catalogue”, he regarded only two titles, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經, as the work of Tanwulan. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that all the ascriptions to Tanwulan shown in LDSBJ are not based on reliable sources, except for the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 and the Xianjie qian Fo jing 賢劫千佛經. Hayashiya next moves on to the evaluation of the writing style of these scriptures. Luckily, nine out of the ten scriptures ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ are extant (as listed above). The Taishō ascribes all of those nine texts to Tanwulan, since it follows KYL in principle, which in turn relies very often on LDSBJ. Hayashiya maintains that the nine texts in the Taishō are the same as those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue and in LDSBJ. Hayashiya admits that, judging from their style, all of these nine texts must have been produced at or before the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, so that in terms of period, it is not impossible that they are the work of Tanwulan. However, Hayashiya argues that there is no uniform style among the nine texts. He also points out that, among other extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan by LDSBJ, there are diverse styles, such as that of the Latter Han 後漢 period, or that later than the Song and Qi 宋齋 periods, and hence there is no text among them that can be reliably ascribed to Tanwulan (he refers to his own “Dommuran yakkyō no kenkyū 竺無蘭譯經の研究” for detailed discussions about each title). Hayashiya conjectures that some of the double ascriptions that Changfang gives to some of those titles ascribed to Tanwulan may be part of his efforts to make less noticeable the inconsistency among the styles of the texts. Furthermore, Hayashiya claims that the only texts that are established as Tanwulan’s work, viz., the Sanshiqi pin jing and the Xianjie qian Fo jing, are not extant (the extant Sanshiqi pin jing is actually the Chan xing sanshiqi pin jing 禪行三十七品經 ascribed to An Shigao 安世高, and the extant Xianjie qian Fo jing is much newer than it should be, as it is included in the Liang catalogue 梁錄 of the Taishō ). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that there is no way to determine which texts are the work of Tanwulan based on style and language, and hence it is not certain if any genuine Tanwulan work is extant. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Tanwulan as follows: 1. Tanwulan’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; Hayashiya adds that he does not deal with the Ananduohuan luoyun mu jing, the only lost text among the ten titles, because these general considerations already give us good reasons to safely reject the ascription. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|