| Identifier | T1013 [T] |
| Title | 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 [T] |
| Date | 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 [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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 530-532 |
The title Muqu jing 目佉經 (*Mukha-sūtra) is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya maintains that the reason that LDSBJ omits this title is that LDSBJ used a different title, Anan muqu jing 阿難目佉經 for the same text, following the catalogue of Zhu Daozu 竺道祖錄. The ascription to An Faqin 安法欽 in LDSBJ is false. Hayashiya also argues that this Muqu jing 目佉經 is the same text as the Anantuo muqu nihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼訶離陀經 (Anantamukha[sādhaka]dhāraṇī) T1013 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 as the translator and the Anantuo muqu niheli tuolinni jing (Anantamukha[sādhaka]dhāraṇī) 阿難陀目佉尼訶離陀隣尼經 T1015 ascribed to Buddhaśānta 佛馱扇多as the translator. The Anantuo muqu ni'alituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 in CSZJJ should also be the same text as this Muqu jing 目佉經. (For detailed support for his arguments and further discussions, Hayashiya refers to his own work, Hayashiya 1945, Chapter 4, 124. There, he argues that the style of language in both T1013 and T1015 is clearly that of the 西晋 period or earlier, so the two cannot be translations by Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 or Buddhaśānta.) Thus, this Muqu jing 目佉經 should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period, and the Anantuo muqu ni'alituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 should be omitted. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 115-140 |
According to Hayashiya, the Anantuo muqia niheli tuo (sic) jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (*Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī) T1013 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 and the Anantuomuqia niheli tuolinni jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 T1015 (*Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī) ascribed to Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 should be regarded as one and the same text, and reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. The reasons for this claim are as follows. First, Hayashiya points out that the differences between T1013 and T1015 are too minor to regard them as different texts. He compares the two texts and maintains that, except for one notable difference, viz., T1015 uses both transliteration and translation for the names of the 48 dhāraṇī, while T1013 uses only translation for them, all the differences between them are non-essential ones produced in the process of transmission. Even that difference regarding the names of dhāraṇī is best explained as being caused by T1015 simply omitting the transliteration of the names in T1013, since the translations of the names in the two texts are exactly the same (123-124). Second, Hayashiya maintains that the tone and vocabulary of T1013 and T1015 are clearly of the W. Jin period or earlier, and hence cannot be the work of Guṇabhadra or Buddhaśānta (124). Hayashiya points out that the ascription of an *Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 to Buddhaśānta was first seen in Fajing, who gave no reasons (as Fajing generally does not show the sources of his ascriptions), and that the ascription of the Anantuo muqia niheli tuo jing to Guṇabhadra was first given by LDSBJ, also without specifying any reasons (130). Thus, those two ascriptions can safely be rejected. Further, Hayashiya argues that this text is actually the Muqia jing 目佉經 listed in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經錄. This is because, he explains, the Muqia jing was considered as a lost scripture in many catalogues since CSZJJ (and neither T1013 or T1015 was listed in Dao’an’s catalogue), while among the group of alternate translations of the Weimichi jing 微密持經, the term muqia 目佉 appears only in T1013 and T1015. Based on these considerations, Hayashiya asserts that T1013 and T1015 are one and the same text, and should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 119b17 |
A title almost certainly to be identified with T1013 is ascribed in an interlinear note in Fajing to Buddhaśānta: 阿難目佉尼訶離陀羅尼經一卷(後魏世佛陀扇多譯). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 29c20 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T1013 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經一卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 92a8 |
The ascription of T1013 to Guṇabhadra found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. 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. — 637 |
According to Sakaino, the fact that the Chu wuliang chi men jing 出無量持門經 and the Anantuomuqu nihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (*Anantamukha-dhāraṇī-sūtra) T1013 are listed separately indicates that Fei did not know that the two titles refer to the same text. Sakaino thinks that Fei imported the title Anantuomuqu nihelituo jing, together with many others, from CSZJJ, while taking the title Chu wuliang chimen jing from some other catalogue. 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. — 633-638 |
|
Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 added in LDSBJ are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single or several translators. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Guṇabhadra is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Guṇabhadra to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. According to Sakaino, Fei lists 78 titles as Guṇabhadra’s work (including the 13 already ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ). Among them, as many as 48 titles were actually taken from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄. (Sakaino claims that 13 titles ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ are the only reliable record of Guṇabhadra’s work.) To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists the groups of titles from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” that were newly ascribed to Guṇabhadra by Fei without any solid grounds (635-637). Thus, Sakaino demonstrates that Fei took titles from the certain groups in Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” and allocated them to Guṇabhadra (Sakaino implies clearly that the ascriptions of them to Guṇabhadra are baseless). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Muqu jing 目佉經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note 或安公云出方等部[－ SYM]; 18a23. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (However, cf. also T1013 and T1015.) Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Inagaki 1987] Inagaki, Hisao. The Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī Sūtra and Jñānagarbha 's Commentary: A Study and the Tibetan Text. Kyoto: Nagata bunshodō, 1987. — 25–26, 33–34, pullout Table 2 between pp. 32–33 |
In T, the Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 T1013 is ascribed to Guṇabhadra, and the virtually identical 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 T1015 is ascribed to Buddhaśānta. Inagaki observes that the texts are virtually indistinguishable, except for their treatment of the eponymous dhāraṇī itself. He then argues that neither of these texts should be ascribed to either of these translators. He does not propose a positive alternative ascription for either text. Inagaki proceeds with care in constructing his benchmark corpora for both Guṇabhadra and Buddhaśānta, 33–34 n. 1. For Guṇabhadra, he uses T99, T120, T189, T270, T353, T670, and T678. For Buddhaśānta, he uses T179, T310(32), T576, T835, T1344, T1496, and T1592. The T1013/T1015 phraseology he finds, which differs systematically from renderings of the same terms in his Guṇabhadra and Buddhaśānta reference corpora, is as follows: 聞如是, 一時佛遊, 惟舍梨/維耶離, 泥洹, 賢者 (vs. 尊者), 目㤎蘭 (Maudgalyāyana), 辟支佛, 摩訶衍, 閻浮利, 儒首/軟首, 其音廣聞遍見普安 (for *Avalokiteśvara!), 慈氏, 阿惟越致, 長跪, 叉手, 提惒竭/提和竭, 那術/那由, 乾陀謣 /乾沓和, 阿羞倫/阿須羅/阿修羅, 皆歡喜前稽首佛足作禮而去. As Inagaki points out, this diction is generally of an older vintage than the fifth or sixth century. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|