| Identifier | T1015 [T] |
| Title | 佛說阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 [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 | Buddhaśānta, 佛陀扇多 [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 |
[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. — 212-213 |
The Weimi chi jing 微密持經 is listed in CSZJJ with the alternate title Wuliang men weimi chi jing 無量門微密持經 (Anantamukha-dhāraṇī 無量門微密持經 T1011 ascribed to Zhi Qian). Kamata states that there existed the following three versions of the Anantamukha 微密持經: the Weimie chi jing 微密持經 ascribed to Zhi Qian; the Tuolinni muqie jing 陀隣尼目怯經 [cf. 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 T1015 ascribed to Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多? but see also below --- MR.]; and a Wuruidi zongchi jing 無端底總持經. The latter two are listed in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 of CSZJJ. CSZJJ transmits a “He weimi chi jing ji” 合微密持經記 (“Preface to the Synoptic Anantamukha-dhāranī”) by Zhi Qian 支恭明 (T2145 [LV] 51c17-52a10), which records that a synoptic version of the Anantamukha-dhāranī, the 合微密持經 was compiled by putting the above-listed three versions together. [NOTE: If this is right, either the Tuolinni muqie jing used by Zhi Qian cannot have been T1015, or the ascription of T1015 to Buddhaśānta is wrong, being anachronistic --- MR.] This preface also lists three alternate titles for the Anantamukha: Wuliangmen weimi chi jing 無量門微密持經, Anantuomoqie nikeli tuolinni jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經, and Cheng dao xiang mo de yiqiezhi 成道降魔得一切智. Kamata states that probably the first title was regarded as the most official correct/official 正式な經名, as it is used in the Taishō. However, Kamata also points out that T1011 itself says at the end that its true title is Wuliang weimi zhi chi 無量微密之持, and the alternate title is Cheng dao xiang mo de yizieqhi: 賢者舍利弗白佛言。當何名此經。佛言是法之要。名無量門微密之持。一名成道降魔得一切智。當奉持之 ( T1011 (XIX) 682b3-5). (212). Kamata maintains that the fact that Zhi Qian compiled his synoptic Anantamukha by putting these three versions together indicates that he examined already existing translations to help work on his revision/translation, as seems to have been the case with his Śūraṃagamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 (lost) and Dharmapada 法句經 T210 (see separate CBC@ entries) (213). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 14 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues the Anantuomuqia niheli tuolinni jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 T1015 is almost identical to the Anantuomuqia niheli tuo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 T1013, and that it was translated no later than the Later Qin period. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 226–232. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
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 |
|