| Identifier | T0527 [T] |
| Title | 佛說逝童子經 [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 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Fadu, 支法度 [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. — 910-925 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on these and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Other catalogues, and Taishō: Hayashiya argues that only two texts have ever existed in this group: the Shi jing 逝經 (or Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經) and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經. His two main reasons for this claim are as follows. First, among the four titles shown by Sengyou, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 are likely to be the same. This is because the difference of the two characters zhi 制and she 誓 between these titles can easily be explained as variants of Shi 逝 in the title Shi jing 逝經. Also, Sengyou saw the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經, but not the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經, so his note claiming that the two were different was not based on direct observation. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the two titles as referring to the same text. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu omitted the Zhangzhezi Shi jing, and Hayashiya thinks that this omission is sensible because since the catalogue lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing, the Zhangzhezi Shi jing should be redundant. Second, Sengyou states that the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 is roughly the same 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經/ or Shi jing 逝經. Hayashiya points out that, among the three versions in the Taishō, two of them, namely, the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經T528 and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526, are indeed extremely similar. Differences between them are so minor that they must have been created during the transmission process, cannot have been due to differences in the original texts or translators. Hayashiya also claims that T528 appears to be closer to the original form than T526. Thus, T528 and T526 should be considered as the same text, and the title "Shi tongzi jing" in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures refers probably not the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527, but rather, to the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526. Thus, the only truly separate texts that ever existed were the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 and the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. As for the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 (i.e. the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526), Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and subsequent catalogues ascribe the text to Zhi Mindu 支法度. Hayashiya infers that the initial source of this ascription is Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄. Hence, the ascription is largely reliable. The vocabulary and tone of T526 also support this ascription, since they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya admits that, since there are no surviving texts that clearly ascribed to Zhi Mindu, it is methodologically impossible to undertake a detailed examination of the text to determine the translator decisively. However, as the text is probably Zhi Fadu's translation, Dao’an and Sengyou’s treatment of it as anonymous should be considered as having preceded closer scrutiny by Baochang. Given that T526 is Zhi Mindu's translation, this means that T528 must be his translation as well, since they are the same text. As for the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing/Zhangzhezi Shi jing (Hayashiya appears to regard this text as the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527), judging from its vocabulary and tone, it should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya claims that all other entries and attributions regarding related texts, appearing in the various catalogues, are incorrect and should be eliminated. For example, the Taishō ascribes T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, T526 to An Shigao 安世高, and T527 to 支法度, presumably following KYL 開元錄. All of these ascriptions are wrong and should be changed to the above mentioned ascriptions: T528 is by Zhi Fadu, T526 is also by Zhi Fadu (and should perhaps be better omitted, since it is not in reality a truly independent text), and T527 is anonymous. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 25c8 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T527 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): 逝童子經一卷(與菩薩逝經大同小異). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 68a15-16 |
T527 is ascribed to Zhi Fadu in LDSBJ, with no particular source. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 119a2 |
Ascribed in an interlinear note in Fajing to Zhi Fadu: 逝童子經一卷(晉世沙門支法度譯). [Note: This title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ, which ought to mean that Fajing is the first place we see the ascription to Zhi Fadu --- MR.] 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. — 870 |
Sakaino claims that the ascription of the extant Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527 to Zhi Fadu 支法度, and also that of the extant 菩薩逝經 T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, originated in LDSBJ (clearly implying that both are groundless). He points out that Fei took those titles from the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子逝經 in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯經, as well as the Shi jing 逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯. Fei used the same title, Shi jing 逝經 to fabricate another entry, the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Hō Kyō roku ni tsuite 法經錄について." IBK 19, no. 1 (1970): 235-238. |
|
Naitō gives some general information about Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. It was composed in the space of two months in 594 by a commission of 22 scholars. Hayashiya argued that the catalogue was composed in preparation for the copying of the full canon. Naitō argues that there must have been some circumstances precipitating the rush. He notes that suspicious texts were also recorded and categorised as such, which would be odd if the sole purpose of the catalogue was to list works to be included in an approved version of the canon. He therefore proposes that the catalogue, and the canon connected to it, were prepared as a response to the notorious incident in Guangzhou in 593 surrounding the use of the Zhancha jing 占察經, in which practices of self-flagellation, "stupa repentance" rites, and the "mixing of the sixes" were connected with the use of a scripture that a commission of experts then declared spurious. Among the reasons they gave that the text was inauthentic was that the text was recorded in no earlier catalogues, which Naitō treats as circumstantial evidence that there was a mentality current that could see the compilation of a new catalogue as associated with a similar agenda to determine which texts were authoritative and, by implication, which were spurious, in order to forestall recurrence of like incidents. Naitō also treats the problem of the sources of Fajing's work. Determination of his sources is made difficult by the fact that the catalogue does not explicitly give its sources. Fei Zhangfang/Changfang says that Fajing had seventeen catalogues at his disposal, but then does not himself admit that so many catalogues were extant in their time. Naitō reports very briefly that he has compared the treatment of extant translations in Fajing with treatment in other sources, for a total of 79 translators and 556 works, but here gives no details, rather, promising to report his findings in another venue. He notes that a total of 428 texts were ascribed to named translators in CSZJJ, but in Fajing, that number increases to 459 for translators down to the end of the Qi (i.e. before Sengyou's time). In other words, Fajing has added at least 31 new ascriptions. As a matter of fact, there are 34 more ascriptions on which Fajing does not agree with CSZJJ, for a total of 65 new ascriptions. Naitō is unable to determine Fajing's sources for these ascriptions, but he notes that in total, they entail, among other things, the addition of nine new "translators" to the record: Tanguo 曇果 [cf. T196], Tankejialuo 曇柯迦羅 [to whom no extant texts are ascribed today], Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 [cf. T360, T1432, X11], Fajian 法堅 [cf. T495], Zhi Fadu 支法度 [cf. T17, T527], An Faqin 安法欽 [cf. T816, T2042], Fahai 法海 [cf. T1490], Xian gong 先公 [cf. T640, T641], and Xiang gong 翔公 [cf. T234]. Naitō argues that probably five catalogues were in fact extant at Fajing's (and Fei's) time, in addition to GSZ: CSZJJ, Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue, Li Kuo's 李廓 catalogue, Fashang's 法上 catalogue, and the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄. Prior scholarship had understood that Baochang collected information from a range of older catalogues, and that Baochang was in turn the proximate source for the use of information from these older catalogues in Fei's LDSBJ (Naitō refers to Tokiwa for this view). Naitō doubts this, because he believes that Baochang only reported 226 ascriptions for sutras, and this number probably did not exceed 300 even when śāstras and vinaya works are taken into account; but this total is too few to account for the profusion of new information reported under the Sui. He notes further that comparison to CSZJJ, the only case in which we can check Fei's information against his source, shows that when LDSBJ says "see such-and-such a catalogue", it only means that the title is listed in the source, not the ascription --- CSZJJ is cited in this manner for texts that CSZJJ itself clearly treats as anonymous. Naitō also discusses Fajing's probable use of Fashang's catalogue. He notes that Fashang stopped at about 568-570, and that Fajing does the same. He takes this fact to indicate that Fajing just took Fashang's information over holus-bolus, and suggests that ascriptions to Fajian, Fahai, and Xian gong were probably added on this basis. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|