| Identifier | T0564 [T] |
| Title | 佛說轉女身經 [T] |
| Date | Song-Qi 宋齊 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | *Dharmamitra, 曇摩蜜多 [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 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 436-454 |
According to Hayashiya, the Xiang ye jing 象腋經 T814 (Hastikakṣyā-sūtra) was listed first in Fajing with no ascription. Hayashiya maintains that this text was translated in the Song-Qi 宋齊 period, since it did not appear in CSZJJ (438-439), that the ascription of it to *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多 shown in the Taishō is most likely to be incorrect, and the text should be reclassified as an anonymous sūtra. The gist of Hayashiya’s argument can be shown as follows: The ascription of 814 to Dharmamitra was first given by LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM, KYL, and the Taishō. In LDSBJ, 6 titles are newly ascribed to Dharmamitra, including the Xiang ye jing. Hayashiya examines LDSBJ’s claim that the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄 (Wei shi zhongjing mulu 魏世衆經目錄) ascribed those titles to Dharmamitra, and rejects the claim as highly unlikely, because if there had been such ascriptions in Li Kuo’s catalogue, Fajing would have mentioned them (446-447). Hayahiya then compares six existing texts ascribed to Dharmamitra (listed below), two of which have been ascribed to him since CSZJJ, the others being ascribed to him first by LDSBJ: Ascribed to Dharmamitra by CSZJJ Ascribed to Dharmamitra by LDSBJ Hayahiya claims that texts translated after the time of Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, such as these ones, use largely similar vocabulary to one another, since Kumārajīva largely standardised the terms used in scriptural translations. This being the case, it is not easy to tell anything significant about the ascription of these texts from vocabulary alone, except that they were translated probably in the same period (447-448). However, Hayashiya further examines the details of tone in those texts and concludes that the four texts ascribed to Dharmamitra by LDSBJ (T407, T564, T814, T822) are written with a different tone from T277 and T409, and therefore should not be treated as his works. Although Hayashiya does not exclude the possibility that one or two of the four texts ascribed to Dharmamitra by LDSBJ do happen to be authentic, he asserts that, since LDSBJ does not provide any source or evidence for the ascriptions, it is much more reasonable to reclassify those texts, including T814, as anonymous scriptures of the Song-Qi 宋齊 period (448-450). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Silk 2008] Silk, Jonathan. “The Jifayue sheku tuoluoni jing: Translation, Non-Translation, Both or Neither?” JIABS 31, no. 1-2 (2008[2010]): 369-420. — 376 n. 23 |
Silk cites Tsukinowa (1971): 123: "There is not one true example of something which could be termed a translation of Dharmamitra" (Silk's translation). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Schuster 1984] Schuster, Nancy. “Yoga-Master Dharmamitra and Clerical Misogyny in Fifth Century Buddhism.” The Tibet Journal 9, no. 4 (1984): 33-46. — 36 |
Only four texts are credited to *Dharmamitra in CSZJJ and GSZ: T619, T613?, T409 and T227. T564 and T310(19) are ascribed to *Dharmamitra in KYL. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Balkwill 2016] Balkwill, Stephanie. “The Sūtra on Transforming the Female Form: Unpacking an Early Medieval Chinese Buddhist Text.” Journal of Chinese Religions 44, no. 2 (2016): 127-148. — 133-135 |
Balkwill notes that in the Hôbôgirin Répértoire, the same Sanskrit title is given for T562, T563, T564, T565 and T566. She notes, however, that all five cannot possibly be a translation from the same source work, since they vary greatly in length. She suggests, rather, that they fall into three groups: T562 and T563 are variant versions of the same basic text; T565 and T566 are variant versions of the same text; and T564 is unique. [Balkwill herself goes on to show that the texts were not treated as five variant translations or versions of the same basic text in Fajing, nor in the "Buddha Names Sutra" T441, nor in the modern Taisho. Thus, it seems that for the case of T565 and T566, at least, her argument is only against HBGR, and only against what she feels is an identity between the texts implied by the application of the same reconstructed Sanskrit title to all five. However, she does note that Fajing, T441 and the Taisho all group T564 together with T562 and T563, which she shows clearly to be in error. See also separate note on T564. --- MR] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Balkwill 2016] Balkwill, Stephanie. “The Sūtra on Transforming the Female Form: Unpacking an Early Medieval Chinese Buddhist Text.” Journal of Chinese Religions 44, no. 2 (2016): 127-148. |
Balkwill argues that T564 was probably composed in China (though she also concedes that the possibility remains that it is "a Chinese translation of a now-lost Sanskrit original, which was a composite text", 138). She dates the composition of the text before Fajing, i.e. in the sixth century. She argues that it must have been composed between 515 and 594, because it does not appear in CSZJJ, but first appears in the catalogues in Fajing. She also notes that its title appears in the Fo ming jing T441, which (if the title indeed refers to the same text) would make T441 a terminus ante quem. Balkwill shows that T564 draws quite extensively on three sources probably already extant in Chinese translation at that time: the Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā T625 大樹緊那羅王所問經 ascribed to Kumārajīva; the 腹中女聽經 T563 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema; and the 順權方便經 T565 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. She tabulates the parallels between T564 and these source texts (136-138). [Her treatment of these sources might be somewhat confusing. In some passages, she speaks as if T562/T563, taken as a pair, and T565/T566, also taken as a pair, might equally be the sources of the text. She also states that T564 does not quote verbatim from its sources (133). However, she also states that the wording of T564 is closer to T563 than to T562, and closer to T565 than to T566 (135 n. 19), without showing any examples of the kind of correspondence she has in mind. Accordingly, her table presents relations only to those two texts. --- MR] In addition, she states that she cannot find parallels or sources for some passages, and suggests that these are "apocryphal accretions". Balkwill also argues that certain turns of phrase are "Chinese" and suggest a "Chinese audience", but she only gives two examples of such phraseology, 居士婦 and 百戶虫. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|