Text: T101(10); (untitled)

Summary

Identifier T101(10) [T]
Title (untitled) [T]
Date [None]

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).

Assertions

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. — T101 (II) 495c24-496b13

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

  • Title: (untitled)
  • Identifier: T101(10)

No

[Harrison 2002]  Harrison, Paul. “Another Addition to the An Shigao Corpus? Preliminary Notes on an Early Chinese Saṃyuktāgama Translation.” In Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: In Honor of Doctor Hajime Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday, 1-32. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 2002. — 2-4, 10

According to Harrison, T101(10) (untitled) is probably not by An Shigao, even if the rest of T101 may well be. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, lists among "ancient variant translations" 25 works with titles that Shiio (1937) noticed match texts in T101. However, nos. 9 and 10 are missing from this list. Harrison suggests that both might be more likely to be by Dharmarakṣa than An Shigao. Sengyou lists in CSZJJ (9a15) a Si fu yu jing 四婦喻經 as an ascription to Dharmarakṣa, which could well correspond to T101(10). Harrison suggests, "This is very probably the same sutra, if not the same translation." Harrison also notes that no. 10 "seems to me slightly more regular prosodically than most other An Shigao works, with a greater proportion of four-character phrases."

See also Nattier (2008) for a summary of relevant scholarship. Nattier merely says that the "style (of this text) appears to be of a different vintage" (66).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit