Text: T0557; 佛說龍施女經

Summary

Identifier T0557 [T]
Title 佛說龍施女經 [T]
Date [None]
Unspecified Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Sakaino 1935]
Translator 譯 Zhi Qian 支謙 [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).

Assertions

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

Edit
  • Title: 佛說龍施女經
  • People: Zhi Qian 支謙 (translator 譯)
  • Identifier: T0557

No

[Zürcher 1959/2007]  Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 50, 336 n. 137

According to Zürcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived: T54, T68, T76, T87, T169, T185, T198, T225, T281, T362, T474, T493, T532, T533, T556, T557, T559, T581, T632, T708, T735, T790, T1011. However, Zürcher notes that T68 “is not mentioned by Dao’an.” This entry includes all twenty-three texts accepted by Zürcher as genuine Zhi Qian translations.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

[Nattier 2008]  Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 143-144

“In a recent study Saitō (2003) has argued that T558, rather than T557, should be considered the work of Zhi Qian. His argument, based both on the testimony of scriptural catalogues and on the pattern of rhyme in the verse sections of the text, is well crafted, and it seems quite persuasive as far as it goes. But the vocabulary used in the text tells a different story. Despite its brevity...T558 is virtually saturated with vocabulary that occurs numerous times in other translations by Dharmarakṣa, but never in texts by Zhi Qian. This is true of both the prose and the verse sections, so it seems that the attribution of T557, rather than T558, to Zhi Qian should be retained.”

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Saitō 2013 ]  Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 312-352

Saitō argues that the received attributions of T557 and T558 should be reversed. In other words, T557 in in fact by Dharmarakṣa, and T558 by Zhi Qian.

Saitō’s main evidence in support of this claim is that T558 contains rhyme (some of it loose) throughout its second half. (T557, by contrast, is written entirely in prose.) In addition, the first half of T558, which is in fact in prose, nonetheless contains some scattered rhyme (325-329). Recognition of the rhyme in the second half of the text especially, however, has been hindered by several factors. First, several extant editions present this portion of the text in prose format. Second, the total number of padas is odd, and at 911c, the rhymes also occur at the end of the odd-numbered padas, rather than rhymes appearing at the end of even-numbered padas in a text with an even number of total padas, as we would normally expect. Saitō explains these peculiarities of the text by hypothesising that one to three padas have been lost. Third, the verse portion continues the narrative begun in the preceding prose, rather than recapitulating the same content as the prose portion, as would be more usual. This factor may have led later copyists and editors to overlook the switch to verse. Fourth, many of the rhymes are loose, which is to say, the rhyming pairs belong strictly to different rime classes, according to the formal rules of versification. Saitō argues that they should nonetheless be interpreted as evidence of a conscious attempt to rhyme on the part of the authors of the text. He bases this part of his argument upon comparison with a limited number of instances in which roughly contemporary texts, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, also rhyme words belonging to the same pairs of rime classes (320-321). In some places, he also suggests emendations to the text in order to argue that the text originally rhymed, but was corrupted in transmission.

There still remains a small number of padas in the second part of T558 that genuinely do not rhyme—six out of thirty-three end-padas—but Saitō claims that such cases are also seen in other texts, and the overall ratio of rhyming verses is still too high to be a product of chance. In further support of his claim that the verses are intended to rhyme, he also adduces the distribution of level 平声 to non-level tones仄声 (321-322). Saitō also argues, particularly in relation to the rhymes in the first, prose portion of the text, that it would have been too difficult to obey all the rules of rhyming verse in the context of Buddhist scriptural translation, so that some deviation from those rules should be tolerated, without it excluding the hypothesis that the authors intended to produce at least part of the impression of rhyme.

Saitō argues further, on the basis of comparison with other works in their corpora, that rhymed verse, while not completely unknown in Dharmarakṣa, is far more characteristic of Zhi Qian. He also adduces information in the catalogues that shows that where bibliographers gave information about the length of each text, they ascribed a text matching T557 in length to Dharmarakṣa, and another matching T558 in length to Zhi Qian (337-340). The texts he examines by Dharmarakṣa are the Sheng jing 生経 T154, the Lu mu jing 鹿母経 T182a/b, the Lalitavistara 普曜経 T186, and the Rulai du zheng zishi sanmei jing 如来独証自誓三昧経 T623 (333-336). He argues that most of the rhymed verses in those texts were probably borrowed from other Chinese texts, leaving only a very small proportion of original, deliberately rhymed verses that were probably actually created by Dharmarakṣa’s team.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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. — 141-145

As many as 70 titles newly ascribed to Zhi Qian by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ are found in the catalogues of lost scriptures in CSZJJ. In particular, 56 titles of the 70 feature in the “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, which was newly compiled by Sengyou himself. This strongly suggests that Fei arbitrarily assigned ascriptions to a large portion of the scriptures ascribed to Zhi Qian by taking titles in groups from Sengyou’s list.

Sakaino suggests that it is “so peculiar as to defy comprehension” (實に考えられない不思議のこと) that Sengyou’s list contains more than 860 anonymous scriptures in all, but Fei appears, apparently by sheer happenstance, to have found 14 titles translated by Zhi Qian concentrated in single stretch of only 26 titles (T2145 [LV] 28c3-28). Elsewhere (80-86), Sakaino argues further that Sengyou’s list is in fact organised by topic [it certainly could not be organised by translator, since he regards the texts it contains as anonymous], which makes this clustering of supposed Zhi Qian texts all the stranger. This is part of a broader pattern that Sakaino observes elsewhere in his book, whereby Fei repeatedly assigns new ascriptions holus-bolus, associating groups of texts from Sengyou’s list with the same purported translator. Sakaino does suggest that Fei seems to have referred occasionally to other sources in assigning some of these ascriptions to Zhi Qian, and might even have examined the content of a few texts himself. Sakaino also points out that if CSZJJ gives an alternative title, Fei uses that title, e.g., the 自守亦不自守經 in CSZJJ is listed as不自守意經 in LDSBJ (143-144).

Sakaino gives further arguments about some particular scriptures.

6 scriptures which did not appear in Dao’an, but then do appear in CSZJJ with a note that they are listed in the bei lu 別錄 (首楞嚴, 龍施女, 法鏡, 鹿子, 十二門大方等, and 頼吒和羅), are probably not to be regarded as Zhi Qian’s works. The two texts extant among those six (the *Nāgadatta-sūtra 龍施女 T557, and the *Rāṣṭrapāla-sūtra 賴吒和羅 T68), as discussed earlier (128, 134-135), should therefore not be ascribed to Zhi Qian.

21 scriptures that apparently were taken from sources other than CSZJJ are probably also not Zhi Qian’s works. However, Sakaino does except the 貝多樹經 T713 (*Nidāna-sūtra, Nagaropama-sūtra), the ascription of which to Zhi Qian he says should be accepted.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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. — 128

Sakaino claims that the 龍施女經 Longshinü jing [T557 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is not the work of Zhi Qian. He bases his judgement on the style 文體 of the work [though perhaps Sakaino means by this term the terminology of the text, more specifically, given the way in which he examines the contents of texts more generally ---AI]. According to Sakaino, T557 does not appear to be the work of *Lokakṣema, either, but may be Dharmarakṣa’s work.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

[Gao 1983]  Gao Mingdao 高明道 [Grohmann, Friedrich F.]. “Rulai zhiyin sanmei jing fanyi yanjiu 如來智印三昧經翻譯研究.” MA thesis, Chung-kuo Wen-hua Ta-hsueh 中國文化大學, 1983. — 54-55 n. 24

In the course of a discussion of the ascription of T632, Gao notes that Stein 2872, which preserves a fragment of the Zhongjing bie lu 眾經別錄, which he identifies with the Liu Song catalogue of the same name, lists six texts not ascribed to Zhi Qian in Dao'an's catalogue, but ascribed to him by Sengyou in CSZJJ. Gao argues that the "Bie lu" is therefore Sengyou's source for these ascriptions. The texts in question are: 慧印三昧經 (T632), 差摩竭經, 龍施女經 (T557), 月明善菩薩經 (cf. 月明童子經 in Sengyou's list, and 月明菩薩經 T169), 阿難四事經 (T493), and 七女經 (T556). [Note that Gao himself does not agree with the ascription of T632, and may not subscribed to the other ascriptions in this list; he is merely the proximate source reporting them --- MR.]

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Bielu CSZJJ]  Bielu 別錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集. — T2145 (LV) 7a17-22

CSZJJ cites a/the Bie lu for the following ascriptions to Zhi Qian:

首楞嚴經二卷 ... 別錄所載, 7a17
龍施女經一卷... 別錄所載, 7a18, T557
法鏡經二卷 ... 出別錄, 7a19 (cf. T322!)
鹿子經一卷 ... 別錄所載, 7a20 (cf. T181)
十二門大方等經一卷 ... 別錄所載, 7a21
賴吒和羅經一卷 ... 別錄所載, 7a22, T68

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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, S.2872, are listed the following titles corresponding to extant texts by Zhi Qian (titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering given to the manuscripts in Tan 1991): T169 = Tan#5, T493 = Tan#6, T533 = Tan#3, T557 = Tan#4, T561 = Tan#7, T632 = Tan#2, T1011 = Tan#1.

In addition, at the end if this group of titles (following T561 = Tan#7), an interlinear note states that Zhi Qian translated the text(s): 支謙以吳孫亮建興中出. Similar wording is used by Sy in CSZJJ to cover all of a list of 36 works he ascribes to Zhi Qian, T2145 (LV) 7a23-24. It is an open question whether interlinear titles of this sort in the Bie lu apply to groups of titles, or only to the single title immediately preceding the note.

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

Edit