| Identifier | T0534 [T] |
| Title | 佛說月光童子經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [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 |
[Muller DDBb] Muller, DDB s.v. 月光童子經 — Accessed April 2014. |
"Regarded by modern scholars to be an apocryphal text". Cf. T535. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 54 n. 26 |
|
Mei begins with the 76 texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in the present Taishō which also appear in Sengyou. She then eliminates eight for the following reasons: five are listed as lost by Sengyou's time (T182, T288, T496, T558, T1301); T1301, moreover, contains details that makes it appear as if it may have been composed in China; T103 and T453 have been regarded as dubious by modern scholars (Gao Mingdao and Yinshun); and Sengyou's description of the 佛為菩薩五夢經 that he ascribes to Dharmarakṣa does not match T310(4). This leaves 68 texts Mei thinks can reliably be matched against Sengyou. This entry lists those 68 texts. [Note: Mei erroneously gives the number T627 for what is properly T636---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Buswell 1990b] Buswell, Robert. "Introduction: Prolegomenon to the Study of Buddhist Apocryphal Scriptures." In Buswell 1990, 1-30. — 10 |
Buswell notes in passing that the Yueguang tongzi jing (Candraprabhākumāra; in two versions, both ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, viz. 月光童子經 T534, 申日經 T535) is an apocryphon. He adds that the series of texts on Prince Moonlight “seems to have been modelled on Confucian prognostication texts (tuchen)”. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Boucher 1996] Boucher, Daniel. "Buddhist Translation Procedures in Third-Century China: A Study of Dharmarakṣa and his Translation Idiom." PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996. — 276 |
In the appendix to his dissertation Boucher provides a list of ninety-five texts attributed to Dharmarakṣa by Sengyou in his Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145, along with a note on relevant scholarship. Among these texts is the Yueming tongzhi jing 月明童子經 Candraprabhākumāra-sūtra T534. He adds that the text is also known as Yueguang tongzhi jing 月光童子經. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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. — 410-435 |
According to Hayashiya, there exist only three alternate translations of the Shenri jing 申日經: Yueguang tongzi jing/Yueming tongzi jing 月光童子經/月明童子經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa; The first two of these are listed by Dao’an, and the third first appears in the recompilation of the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄of CSZJJ (with a mistaken title Shenri dou benjing 申日兜本經 given by Sengyou). Although there is one more text in the group, Shiliyue jing 失利越經, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier, Hayashiya points out that this text was already lost at the time of Sengyou and has not been found since. Hayashiya maintains that any other ascriptions or texts appear in the catalogues are incorrect or redundant and should be excised (for example, LDSBJ ascribes the Shenri jing to Zhi Qian, and a Shendou ben jing 申兜本經 = Shenri er bing jing 申日兒本經 to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, but Hayashiya rejects both of these ascriptions as groundless.) In the Taishō, there exist the following three texts: Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa Hayashiya compares the style and vocabulary of these texts with the Sheng jing 生經 T154, a text that he regards as an established Dharmarakṣa translation, in order to see which one of the three is really Dharmarakṣa’s work. Based on this comparison, Hayashiya asserts that T534 is indeed the work of Dharmarakṣa, because T534 and T154 share quite a few words and phrases, including 聞如是, 世尊, 與大比丘衆, 慈悲喜護, and 無常苦空非身 (Hayashiya lists detailed differences between T154, T534, T535, and T536 in length at 430-432). Hayashiya admits that there is a problem in identifying Dharmarakṣa’s work, which is that his vocabulary can vary according to the year of production and amanuenses, and that T534, as well as T535 and T536, contain a number of words and phrases that never appear in any other Mahāyāna texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Nonetheless, Hayashiya argues that T534 is Dharmarakṣa’s work, because the positive match of the vocabulary is good enough, and the text has been consistently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa since Jingtai (422-423). According to Hayashiya, it is also slightly odd that the name Yueming 月明 does not appear in T534, since the original title of the text was Yueming tongzi jing 月明童子經, as listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. However, it does not affect the ascription of the text because there is no other candidate for the Yueguang tongzi jing/Yueming tongzi jing. Hayashiya asserts that T535 and T536 are also translations of the W. Jin period or earlier, based on textual comparison. Further, he claims that T535 is most likely to have originally been entitled Shenri er ben jing, while T536 should have been called Shenri jing 申日經, since the former focuses on Shenri’s 申日 son 兒, and the latter on Shenri himself. Hayashiya thinks that the ascriptions that the Taishō gives to T535 and T536 are incorrect. The ascription of T535 to Dharmarakṣa is to be rejected since there is only one work of Dharmarakṣa in the group recorded in the foregoing catalogues, namely T534. The ascription of T536 to Guṇabhadra comes from LDSBJ, as mentioned above, and is groundless. Thus, according to Hayashiya, the correct titles and ascriptions of T534, T535, and T536 are as follows: T534: Dharmarakṣa; Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — vol. 6, pp. 163-164 |
Satō Ryōchi 佐藤良智 points out that the 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents, and that T536 should be the oldest of the three, since it has the simplest story and wording. Satō also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is an apocryphon that was created by re-writing 改作 T536. He adds that 兒 in the title 申日兒本經 is written 兜 in CSZJJ and some other catalogues, and that those three scriptures are a clear example of the development of a group of scriptures over time. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 247 |
The Shenri jing 申日經 (Candraprabhākumāra) T535 is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. An older version of the text also exists, the Shenri’er ben jing 申日兒本經 (T536), as well as newer versions, the Yueguang tongyi jing 月光童子經 (T534, also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa) and the Dehu zhangzhe jing 德護長者經 (T545). Ōno also states that T535 and T534 are old translations, since they are listed in Dao’an’s catalogue as anonymous scriptures, and that the ascription of those two to Dharmarakṣa in the Taishō is incorrect. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — Volume 6, p.163-164 |
Satō Ryōchi 佐藤良智 points out that the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents [all are regarded loosely as alternate versions of the Candraprabhakumāra-sūtra], and that T536 should be the oldest of the three since it has the simplest story and wording. Satō also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is apocryphal, created by re-writing 改作 T536. 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 Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 16c24. 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. T534.) Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, are listed the following titles corresponding to extant texts by Dharmarakṣa (titles in the DH mss. Bie lu are identified by the numbering given to the manuscripts in Tan 1991): T170 = Tan#3, T199 = Tan#53; possibly T222 = Tan#20 (the title given is 小品經), T310(3) = Tan#78, T317 = Tan#52, T323 = Tan#6, T324 = Tan#4, probably part of T325 = Tan#31, T338 = Tan#8, T433 = Tan#51, T460 = Tan#1 (title missing, but ms. here can be reconstructed on the basis of comparison with CSZJJ); T534 = Tan#9, T567 = Tan#11, T569 = Tan#50, T589 = Tan#10, T811 = Tan#7, T812 = Tan#2, T817 = Tan#5. In addition, the Bie lu features interlinear notes following the following titles, directly identifying Dharmarakṣa as the translator of the text(s) in question, and/or giving dates and other circumstances of translation. These notes largely correspond verbatim to similar notes given for various parts of the Dhr corpus in CSZJJ, either in Sengyou's own interlinear notes, or, in a couple of cases, in independent documents relating to the texts in question: T460 = Tan#1 (see T2145 [LV] 51b8-13); T567 = Tan#10 (CSZJJ 50b6-10); T222? = Tan#20 (CSZJJ 9b28-c4). An open question is whether such notes in the Bie lu are meant to apply only to the single title that they follow, or to groups of titles (and if they apply to groups of titles, how many titles are covered by each single note). A slightly more complex case is T638 = Tan#62, where an interlinear note already gives the information (carried elsewhere too) that the text was produced by Dharmarakṣa and then revised by Nie Chengyuan, This information corresponds closely in wording to CSZJJ 9c6-8. Dating of this Bie lu is a complex matter; see other CBC@ entries directly on these DH manuscript witnesses, citations in later catalogues etc. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|