| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Sengqieluocha ji jing houji 僧伽羅剎集經後記 [T] |
| Date | late fifth century [Palumbo 2013] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Palumbo 2013] |
| 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. — CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 71b24-c7 |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2013] Palumbo, Antonello. An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經. Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research Series 7. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Co., 2013. — 86-89 |
Palumbo argues for the apocryphal nature of the anonymous "postscript" to the "Sūtra collected by Saṃgharakṣa" 僧伽羅剎所集經 T194, CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 71b24-c7, on the basis of the following six points: 1) Whereas the preface of T194 (which survives in both T194 and the CSZJJ and is considered to be an authentic piece by Dao’an) says that *Saṃghabhadra(?) 僧伽跋澄 used a manuscript copy of the scripture (“齎此經本”), the postscript instead reports that he orally recited (“口誦”) the text; 2) Whereas the preface gives the translator as Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, the postscript gives it as “Vibhāṣā and Buddharakṣa” 毘婆沙佛圖羅剎; 3) According to the preface, the translation was completed on the 30th day of the 11th month of the 20th year of the Jianyuan era (December 28th 384), but the postscript instead says that the translation started on this day; 4) The monk styled “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙 in the postscript likely refers to Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍, but Buddhayaśas came to Chang’an only as early as in the mid-400s; 5) The postscript refers to Dao’an 道安 with the epithet “An Gong” 安公, but this is a practice attested only from the late 5th century; 6) The postscript refers to Dao’an’s “Mohe boluoruo poluomi jing chao xu” 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄序 with its alternative title “Da pin xu” 大品序, but the only other instance of this alternative title is found Lu Cheng’s 陸澄 (425–494) Fa lun 法論 compiled in the late fifth-century. Palumbo thus concludes that “the ‘Postscript’ is a distorted record written long after the fact, probably in the South towards the end of the 5th c. […]” [Note: Although this does not necessarily undermine the conclusion of Palumbo’s argument, it is possible that “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙 in this preface refers rather to the text titled Vibhāṣā 鞞婆沙 (referred to in the CSZJJ also as “雜阿毘曇毘婆沙” or “毘婆沙”; T1547 is believed to be a revised version of this text; see the CBC entry on T1547) than to a monk known as “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙. The Taishō punctuates the sentence in question as follows. 罽賓比丘僧伽跋澄。於長安石羊寺口誦此經。及毘婆沙佛圖羅剎翻譯。 This might have influenced earlier scholars to take “毘婆沙” and “佛圖羅剎” as the two translators of the text. However, the sentence can be punctuated and translated instead as follows: 罽賓比丘僧伽跋澄。於長安石羊寺口誦此經及毘婆沙。佛圖羅剎翻譯。 This reading is supported by the fact that in the preface to the Vibhāṣā, as well as in the chronological bibliography of the CSZJJ, this text is indeed reported to have been “recited” (諷誦/口誦) by *Saṃghabhadra(?) 僧伽跋澄 and translated by *Buddharakṣa(?) 佛圖羅剎. See T2145:55.10b5–12 and 73c3–7 --- SL.] [Note: Although Palumbo, in his argument, only mentions Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍 as the possible candidate for a monk styled “Vibhāṣā” 毘婆沙, the contemporary Dharmagupta 曇摩崛多 and Dharmayaśas 曇摩耶舍 were also known as “毘婆沙法師二人” collectively (T1858:45.155c12 –18). In fact, the first three of the four references given in Palumbo’s footnote on this point (footnote 178) are references to Dharmagupta and Dharmayaśas, and only the last reference is about Buddhayaśas --- SL.] Entry author: Sangyop Lee |
|