Text: Qi nü guan jing 七女觀經

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	Qi nü guan jing 七女觀經 [Saitō 2013 ]
Date	[None]

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 206-248	Qi nü guan jing 七女觀經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Qi nü guan jing 七女觀經
No	[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 206-248	Fo shuo qi nü jing 佛說七女經 (JLYX version) Qi nü guan jing 七女觀經 T0556; 佛說七女經	Saitō compares three versions of the Qi nü jing 七女経, and argues that the Qi nü jing quoted in the Baochang's Jing lü yi xiang 経律異相 T2121 is Zhi Qian’s work, rather than the Qi nü jing T556, and further, that the Qi nü guan jing 七女観経 in the Dunhuang manuscripts is apocryphal. The gist of his discussion can be presented as follows: According to Saitō, there are three versions of the Qi nü jing extant today: T556, ascribed to Zhi Qian; the Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 (LIII) 185b19-186a18; and the Qi nü guan jing 七女観経 among the Dunhuang manuscripts (S. 1548, S. 5839, T2913). Each was produced independently, without being influenced by the others (507 [but see below for an assertion that the apocryphal Dunhuang text is based upon the text witnessed in Baochang’s T2121 --- MR]). Catalogues also record three versions of the Qi nü jing: the Qi nü jing ascribed to Zhi Qian (cf. T556); a Qi nü ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (claimed by Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ to be the same text as the Qi nü jing); and a Qi nü ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅 (also called Qi nü jing or Qi nü ben xing ming jing 七女本心明経), which Fei claims is similar to the Qi nü jing ascribed to Zhi Qian. The last two ascriptions were first given by Fei in LDSBJ, and adopted by succeeding catalogues. KYL records that only T556 is extant (508-510). Saitō compares these three texts and maintains that the Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is based on some unknown text, but not on T556, although Baochang states that the quoted text is from the Qi nü jing 出仏説七女経. The Qi nü guan jing is not influenced by the other two extant texts [again, see below --- MR]. Saitō gives a table presenting the differences between key terms used in the three texts (510-511). Saitō examines the verses in all three texts (511-516, 518). On that basis, and also some other factors such as vocabulary, he makes the following claims about the three texts: T556 is unlikely to be Zhi Qian’ work, since the lengths of the lines in the verses are irregular (516). In addition, it features a number of terms not used in other Zhi Qian’s works (521). The Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is likely to be Zhi Qian’s work, since the majority of the sound pairs in the verse are intentionally made to rhyme or loosely rhymed (516, 521). The Dunhuang Qi nü guan jing is apocryphal, because a) its verses rhyme perfectly (after Saitō’s careful examination, on page 517-519); b) it uses the term “Mingyuan wang” 冥縁王 (referring to Ui 1969) (520); and c) the title Qi nü guan jing is not listed in any historical catalogues down to the Zhenyuan lu 貞元録 completed in 800 CE (520). Saitō argues that the Qi nü guan jing was based on the Qi nü jing in Baochang’s T2121, since the verses in both have a similar order, structure, and vocabulary (520). The Qi nü guan jing was produced probably in the ninth century or later, since it is not recorded in earlier catalogues and uses the character 怙 for rhyming, which rhymes with the other character of the pair (処) only in the pronunciation of the eighth century or later (517-519). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 206-248

Qi nü guan jing 七女觀經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Qi nü guan jing 七女觀經

[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 206-248

Saitō compares three versions of the Qi nü jing 七女経, and argues that the Qi nü jing quoted in the Baochang's Jing lü yi xiang 経律異相 T2121 is Zhi Qian’s work, rather than the Qi nü jing T556, and further, that the Qi nü guan jing 七女観経 in the Dunhuang manuscripts is apocryphal. The gist of his discussion can be presented as follows:

According to Saitō, there are three versions of the Qi nü jing extant today: T556, ascribed to Zhi Qian; the Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 (LIII) 185b19-186a18; and the Qi nü guan jing 七女観経 among the Dunhuang manuscripts (S. 1548, S. 5839, T2913). Each was produced independently, without being influenced by the others (507 [but see below for an assertion that the apocryphal Dunhuang text is based upon the text witnessed in Baochang’s T2121 --- MR]).

Catalogues also record three versions of the Qi nü jing: the Qi nü jing ascribed to Zhi Qian (cf. T556); a Qi nü ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (claimed by Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ to be the same text as the Qi nü jing); and a Qi nü ben jing 七女本経 ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅 (also called Qi nü jing or Qi nü ben xing ming jing 七女本心明経), which Fei claims is similar to the Qi nü jing ascribed to Zhi Qian. The last two ascriptions were first given by Fei in LDSBJ, and adopted by succeeding catalogues. KYL records that only T556 is extant (508-510).

Saitō compares these three texts and maintains that the Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is based on some unknown text, but not on T556, although Baochang states that the quoted text is from the Qi nü jing 出仏説七女経. The Qi nü guan jing is not influenced by the other two extant texts [again, see below --- MR]. Saitō gives a table presenting the differences between key terms used in the three texts (510-511).

Saitō examines the verses in all three texts (511-516, 518). On that basis, and also some other factors such as vocabulary, he makes the following claims about the three texts:

T556 is unlikely to be Zhi Qian’ work, since the lengths of the lines in the verses are irregular (516). In addition, it features a number of terms not used in other Zhi Qian’s works (521).

The Qi nü jing quoted in Baochang’s T2121 is likely to be Zhi Qian’s work, since the majority of the sound pairs in the verse are intentionally made to rhyme or loosely rhymed (516, 521).

The Dunhuang Qi nü guan jing is apocryphal, because a) its verses rhyme perfectly (after Saitō’s careful examination, on page 517-519); b) it uses the term “Mingyuan wang” 冥縁王 (referring to Ui 1969) (520); and c) the title Qi nü guan jing is not listed in any historical catalogues down to the Zhenyuan lu 貞元録 completed in 800 CE (520). Saitō argues that the Qi nü guan jing was based on the Qi nü jing in Baochang’s T2121, since the verses in both have a similar order, structure, and vocabulary (520). The Qi nü guan jing was produced probably in the ninth century or later, since it is not recorded in earlier catalogues and uses the character 怙 for rhyming, which rhymes with the other character of the pair (処) only in the pronunciation of the eighth century or later (517-519).

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit