| Identifier | T1432 [T] |
| Title | 曇無德律部雜羯磨 [T] |
| Date | early 5th century [Funayama 2013] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Kamata 1982] |
| Compiler 編集 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Kamata 1982] |
| Translator 譯 | Kang Sengkai, 康僧鎧, *Saṃghavarman [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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. |
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. — 158-159 |
"Not a single text can reliably be credited to Kang Sengkai. While there well may have been such a monk living in north China during the Wei period, his name simply became a peg on which to hang the attribution of texts which are obviously of much later vintage." None of his texts are ascribed to him by Sengyou or Daoan, and Fajing only ascribes T310(19) to him out of the three texts that eventually came to bear his name. Internal evidence shows much later style, e.g. 如是我聞 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Funayama 2013] Funayama Tōru 船山徹. Butten wa dō Kan’yaku sareta no ka: sūtora ga kyōten ni naru toki 仏典はどう漢訳されたのか スートラが経典になるとき. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 2013. — 166 |
Funayama very briefly reports that Hirakawa concluded that the Za jiemo 雜羯磨 T1432 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 could not possibly be from the Wei, and is a digest of the Dharmagupta-vinaya 四分律 T1428, which was translated in the first half of the fifth century. He cites Hirakawa (1960). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hureau 2009] Hureau, Sylvie. "Translations, Apocrypha, and the Emergence of the Buddhist Canon." In Early Chinese Religion, Part Two: The Period of Division (220-589 AC), edited by John Lagerwey and Lü Pengzhi, 741-774. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 4: China. Leiden: Brill, 2009. — 745 |
Hureau says that Hirakawa has argued that "in their present form, these texts [T1432, T1433] seem to be extracts from the translation of the complete Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, which appeared at the beginning of the 5th century." She refers to Hirakawa (1960): 203. 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. — 241, 243-247 |
On Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (which Sakaino reconstructs *Saṁghavarman), Sakaino makes the following claims: GSZ states that four texts are to be ascribed to Kang Sengkai. It is unknown which four texts this refers to. KYL lists three titles (an Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經, cf. T310(19), a Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經, cf. T360, and a Karma in four recitations 四分雜羯磨, cf. T1432), and LDSBJ lists two. However, Sakaino claims that those ascriptions are unreliable. 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. — 779 |
The ascription of the Za jiemo 雜羯磨 [曇無徳律部雜羯磨 T1432] to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 appears in KYL for the first time, not being recorded in CSZJJ or LDSBJ. Sakaino states that this ascription remains doubtful for the same reasons as for T1470 and T1467 (see separate CBC@ entries). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 183-184 |
It is not known where Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (*Saṃghavarman) was from. Kamata suggests that he might be from Sodgiana 康居国 as his name contains the ethnonym Kang 康. It is recorded that Kang Sengkai translated four texts including the Ugra-paripṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 T310(19). LDSBJ ascribes two scriptures to Kang Sengkai, the Ugra-paripṛcchā and the Wuliangshou (*Amitābha) jing 無量壽經 (*Sukhāvatīvyūha) T360. KYL records three titles ascribed to Kang Sengkai, Ugra-paripṛcchā, Wuliangshou jing, and the Si fen za jiemo 四分雜羯磨 T1432, all of which were extant in Zhisheng’s time (183). All three texts still carry the ascription to Kang Sengkai in T. Kamata maintains that all these ascriptions must be incorrect, on the following grounds (183-184): According to Kamata, there are three competing ascriptions for T360: a) Kang Sengkai, b) Dharmarakṣa , and c) Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 and Baoyun 寶雲. None of them has been proven correct to date. The ascription to Kang Sengkai was first given by LDSBJ, and accepted by succeeding catalogues. LDSBJ’s view is supposedly based on the Jin catalogue 晋世雜錄 by Zhu Daozu 竺道祖and the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄. The former catalogue was lost by the time of Fei, as Fei himself records. Kamata speculates that Fei probably learned about the record in those catalogues via some other catalogue(s). As CSZJJ does not record any scripture ascribed to Kang Sengkai, most modern scholars do not accept the ascription of T360 to Kang Sengkai. Kamata cites work by Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 (『佛教經典成立史論』, 法蔵館, 1946, 220;『中国浄土教理史』, 法蔵館, 1964, 40); Ōno Genmyō 小野玄妙 (『佛教經典総論』, 『佛書解説大辞典』別巻, 32-34); and Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達 (『原始浄土思想の研究』, 岩波書店, 1970, 62-64 ). The ascription of T310(19) to Kang Sengkai was rejected in KYL. Most modern scholars also reject this ascription. Kamata cites Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (『初期大乗佛教の研究』, 春秋社, 1968, 488-489). Kamata asserts that the ascription of T1432 (曇無德律部雜羯磨) to Kang Sengkai is also incorrect. Kamata states that some scholars have indeed doubted the very existence of Kang Sengkai, and suspect that his name actually refers to Kang Senghui 康僧會 of the Wei 呉 (Kamata cites Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, 『支那佛教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 241-242). Kamata himself holds that it may be a little far-fetched to deny the existence of Kang Sengkai altogether, since GSZ reports his life, but agrees that the ascriptions to him should be rejected (184). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 184-185 |
Tandi 曇諦 is reported in GSZ (with the name Tandi 曇帝), LDSBJ, and KYL. The Tanwude jiemo 曇無德羯磨 T1433 is ascribed to him (as still in T) in GSZ (and also in LDSBJ and KYL), with the place of translation the Baima si 白馬寺 in Luoyang 洛陽. Kamata points out that it is questionable if this Baimao si actually existed. LDSBJ claims that the ascription to Tandi is based on a record in Zhu Daozu’s supposed catalogue of Wei and Wu translations 竺道祖魏錄, but Zhu Daozu’s catalogue itself should not be taken as a genuine and reliable source. As for the Si fen lü jiemo 四分律羯磨 (*Dharmaguptaka-karma) ascribed to Tandi, Kamata summarises Hirakawa’s view that this text was produced after the translation of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 T1428, as in the case of the Karma 羯磨 (i.e. a text of nearly the same title, ; cf. 四分雜羯磨 T1432) ascribed to Kang Sengkai. Both the Si fen lü jiemo and the Karma were therefore not translation texts, but were compiled in China. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Hō Kyō roku ni tsuite 法經錄について." IBK 19, no. 1 (1970): 235-238. |
|
Naitō gives some general information about Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. It was composed in the space of two months in 594 by a commission of 22 scholars. Hayashiya argued that the catalogue was composed in preparation for the copying of the full canon. Naitō argues that there must have been some circumstances precipitating the rush. He notes that suspicious texts were also recorded and categorised as such, which would be odd if the sole purpose of the catalogue was to list works to be included in an approved version of the canon. He therefore proposes that the catalogue, and the canon connected to it, were prepared as a response to the notorious incident in Guangzhou in 593 surrounding the use of the Zhancha jing 占察經, in which practices of self-flagellation, "stupa repentance" rites, and the "mixing of the sixes" were connected with the use of a scripture that a commission of experts then declared spurious. Among the reasons they gave that the text was inauthentic was that the text was recorded in no earlier catalogues, which Naitō treats as circumstantial evidence that there was a mentality current that could see the compilation of a new catalogue as associated with a similar agenda to determine which texts were authoritative and, by implication, which were spurious, in order to forestall recurrence of like incidents. Naitō also treats the problem of the sources of Fajing's work. Determination of his sources is made difficult by the fact that the catalogue does not explicitly give its sources. Fei Zhangfang/Changfang says that Fajing had seventeen catalogues at his disposal, but then does not himself admit that so many catalogues were extant in their time. Naitō reports very briefly that he has compared the treatment of extant translations in Fajing with treatment in other sources, for a total of 79 translators and 556 works, but here gives no details, rather, promising to report his findings in another venue. He notes that a total of 428 texts were ascribed to named translators in CSZJJ, but in Fajing, that number increases to 459 for translators down to the end of the Qi (i.e. before Sengyou's time). In other words, Fajing has added at least 31 new ascriptions. As a matter of fact, there are 34 more ascriptions on which Fajing does not agree with CSZJJ, for a total of 65 new ascriptions. Naitō is unable to determine Fajing's sources for these ascriptions, but he notes that in total, they entail, among other things, the addition of nine new "translators" to the record: Tanguo 曇果 [cf. T196], Tankejialuo 曇柯迦羅 [to whom no extant texts are ascribed today], Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 [cf. T360, T1432, X11], Fajian 法堅 [cf. T495], Zhi Fadu 支法度 [cf. T17, T527], An Faqin 安法欽 [cf. T816, T2042], Fahai 法海 [cf. T1490], Xian gong 先公 [cf. T640, T641], and Xiang gong 翔公 [cf. T234]. Naitō argues that probably five catalogues were in fact extant at Fajing's (and Fei's) time, in addition to GSZ: CSZJJ, Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue, Li Kuo's 李廓 catalogue, Fashang's 法上 catalogue, and the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄. Prior scholarship had understood that Baochang collected information from a range of older catalogues, and that Baochang was in turn the proximate source for the use of information from these older catalogues in Fei's LDSBJ (Naitō refers to Tokiwa for this view). Naitō doubts this, because he believes that Baochang only reported 226 ascriptions for sutras, and this number probably did not exceed 300 even when śāstras and vinaya works are taken into account; but this total is too few to account for the profusion of new information reported under the Sui. He notes further that comparison to CSZJJ, the only case in which we can check Fei's information against his source, shows that when LDSBJ says "see such-and-such a catalogue", it only means that the title is listed in the source, not the ascription --- CSZJJ is cited in this manner for texts that CSZJJ itself clearly treats as anonymous. Naitō also discusses Fajing's probable use of Fashang's catalogue. He notes that Fashang stopped at about 568-570, and that Fajing does the same. He takes this fact to indicate that Fajing just took Fashang's information over holus-bolus, and suggests that ascriptions to Fajian, Fahai, and Xian gong were probably added on this basis. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|