Text: T0526; 佛說長者子制經; 佛説長者子制經

Summary

Identifier T0526 [T]
Title 佛說長者子制經 [T]
Date 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941]
Translator 譯 Zhi Fadu, 支法度 [Hayashiya 1941]

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

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.

Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Hayashiya 1941]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 910-928

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

  • Title: 佛説長者子制經

No

[CSZJJ]  Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 25c19

In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T526 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):

長者子制經一卷.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Fajing 594]  Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 119a1

An interlinear note in Fajing (carried in SYM but missing from K) ascribes the text to An Shigao:長者子制經一卷(一名制經) [+(後漢安世高譯)SYM]. The text is one of three translations of the same text listed here, and the third also bears an ascription—to Bo Fazu—carried only in SYM and missing in K, T2146 (LV) 119a3.

[Note: This title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ, which ought to mean that Fajing is the first place we find the ascription to An Shigao --- MR.]

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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). — 33, 331 n. 82

According to Zürcher, the ascription of this text to An Shigao is not supported by the earliest external evidence. Zürcher says that Dao'an ascribes 34 texts in total to An Shigao. Setting aside T32 (see below), only 19 of the remaining 30 texts on Dao'an's list are extant: T13, T14, T31, T36, T48, T57, T98, T105, T109, T112, T150a, T150b, T397, T602, T603, T605, T607, T792, and T1557. This implies that other ascriptions to An Shigao in the modern (Taishō) canon are more open to question. This record lists all such texts: T16, T91, T92, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T1467, T1470, T1492, T2027.

[NOTE: Dao'an ascribed four texts to An Shigao only with hesitation. Three are no longer extant; the only extant text among them is T32. See separate entry on T32.]

[NOTE: In a later publication (Zürcher 1991) Zürcher came to the opinion that T1508 should also be ascribed to An Shigao---JN/MR.]

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Yes

[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:
A Shi jing 逝經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou.

CSZJJ 出三藏記集:
CSZJJ records three other titles that are considered to be alternate translations of this text in its catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, which are: Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經. Sengyou actually saw three of those four texts, except for the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經.

Other catalogues, and Taishō:
Later catalogues added several more entries to those above, with various attributions. Taishō has three titles that belong to this group: Pusa shi jing 菩薩逝經 T0528, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T0526, and Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T0527.

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 Fadu 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 Fadu, 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 Fadu'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 Zhi Fadu, 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

Edit

No

[Fei 597]  Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 51a2

T526 is ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ, with no particular source.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Ui 1971]  Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971. — 441-442

In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one.

The Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 (T526) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows:

- Sengyou lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄.

- Sengyou also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan stating that it is largely the same text 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Ui points out that this Pusa Shi jing is probably the same as the Shi jing 逝經 in 1 juan listed in the recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, with the alternate title Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Sengyou actually saw both the Shi tongzi jing and the Pusa Shi jing, and classified them as anonymous.

- LDSBJ also lists the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing in 1 juan as An Shigao’s work, without providing any support for the ascription.

- LDSBJ then lists a Shi tongzi jing 誓童子經 in 1 juan and ascribes it to Bo Fazu 白法祖 with the alternate orthography Zhi tongzi jing 逝童子,經stating that that it is similar to the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Fei also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan and ascribes it to Zhi Fadu 支法度, with the alternate titles Zhangzhe Shi jing 長者逝經, Zhi jing 制經, Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經, and Shi jing 逝經.

- KYL ascribes the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 in 1 juan to An Shigao, with the alternate title Zhi jing 制經, stating that it is the first “issue” 初出 and the same work 同本 as some other texts, including the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. Ui points out that this ascription is based on LDSBJ.

- Following LDSBJ again, KYL also lists the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 in 1 juan, ascribed to Bo Fazu with the alternate titles Shi tongzi jing 誓童子經 and Shi jing 逝經, stating that it is the third issue 第三出 and the same work as other texts such as the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing. In addition, Zhisheng lists a Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 in 1 juan as an anonymous scripture of the Wu 呉 period, regarding it as the second issue 第二出, but stating that it was lost in his time.

- KYL also lists a Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 in 1 juan, ascribed to Zhi Fadu, as the fourth issue 第四出, with the alternate titles Zhangzhe Zhi jing 長者制經, Zhi jing 制經, and Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經. Although Zhisheng states in this entry that he referred to the Baochang lu 寶唱錄 without mentioning LDSBJ, Ui points out that, judging from the added note including the alternate titles, it is clear that the entry is taken from LDSBJ.

- Zhangzhi zi Zhi 長者子制 means the son of a rich man 長者 named Zhi 制.

Thus, the ascription of 長者子制經 (T526) to An Shigao should be rejected.

In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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. — 149-154

Kamata discusses ascriptions to An Shigao, and is willing, on various grounds, to accept the ascriptions for T13, T14, T31, T32, T48, T57, T98, T112, T150A, T150B, T397(17), T602, T603, T607, and T1557. This implies that in Kamata's opinion, the ascriptions for all other texts attributed to An Shigao in T are less reliable, namely, T16, T36, T91, T92, T105, T109, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T605, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T792, T1467, T1470, T1492, and T2027. This entry lists all the texts in this latter group.

Entry author: Michael Radich

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. — 56 n. 24

Using the example of An Shigao, Gao observes a pattern of reascription in LDSBJ, whereby Fei Zhangfang takes batches of titles from lists of anonymous scriptures in LDSBJ, and assigns them to a single translator. In CSZJJ, such anonymous works are grouped by theme, as evidenced by the title. Gao notes that multiple titles on the themes of wealthy householders 長者 [see e.g. T2034 (XLIX) 50c12-17, 51a2-5 --- MR], renunciation 出家 [51a8-11, 51b14-20], brahmins 婆羅門 [51b10-c7], hells 地獄 [51c13-18], and samādhi 三昧 [esp. 52b10-18] are thus reassigned to An Shigao. This entry lists all extant An Shigao texts with those keywords in their titles [note: Gao does not provide a list of texts he regards as affected by this pattern, and I have not checked whether all of the texts associated with this entry were treated as anonymous in CSZJJ, or whether, alternatively, some were already assigned there to An Shigao --- MR.]

Gao also cites Okabe Kazuo 岡部和雄. "Shitsuyaku zakkyōroku kenkyū no kadai." IBK 21, no. 2 (1983): 66-71. Okabe had reportedly also noticed this pattern of reassignment of thematically grouped batches of anonymous titles from CSZJJ in LDSBJ.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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. — 4

In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang argues that the Zhangzhe zi zhi jing 長者子製經 T526 might have been translated during under Eastern or Western Jin, or the Southern and Northern Dynasties. They refer to

Fang Yixin 方一新. “Cong Zhangzhe zi zhi jing yongci tedian kan qi yizhe niandai” 從《長者子制經》用詞特點看其譯者年代. In Yuyan zhilü — Zhu Jianing xiansheng qizhi shouqing lunwen ji 語言之旅——竺家寧先生七秩壽慶論文集, edited by Zhou Bixiang 周碧香, 10–46. Taibei: Wunan chuban gongsi, 2015.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

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. — 4

In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Zhangzhe zi zhi jing 長者子製經 T526 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to

Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit