| Identifier | T0514 [T] |
| Title | 佛說諫王經 [T] |
| Date | W. Jin 西晋, or Wei-Wu 魏呉 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Translator 譯 | Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 [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. — 732-734 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on the Da xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 is as follows: A Da/xiao jian wang jing is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Dao'an's original catalogue included by a Da jian wang jing 大諫王經 and a Xiao jian wang jing 小諫王經, but only one of these texts was extant in the time of Sengyou. It was not known whether the one that survived was the Da ~ or the Xiao ~, so the text was renamed Da/xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 in Sengyou's recompilation. The Da/xiao jian wang jing is first ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 in LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄. Although DZKZM states that its description of the Da/xiao jian wang jing is based on the *Dharmottara catalogue 達磨欝多羅錄, Hayashiya maintains that it is much more likely to be based on LDSBJ, since DZKZM’s claim that the *Dharmottara catalogue ascribes the text to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 is implausible. Hayashiya asserts that the *Dharmottara catalogue mentioned by DZKZM is not the real *Dharmottara catalogue, viz., Fashang's catalogue 法上錄, adding that he intended to give evidence for this claim in a forthcoming work (without providing the title of said work). DZKZM recorded the length of the Da/xiao jian wang jing as four sheets. KYL also ascribes the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing to Juqu Jingsheng. The catalogue classifies it as an extant Mahāyāna text, one of an alternate translation group that also includes the Rulai shi jiao Shengjun wang jing 如來示教勝軍王經 and the Fo wei Shengguang tianzi shuo wangfa jing 佛爲勝光天子説王法經. Hayashiya points out that there is no support for categorizing the Da/xiao jian wang jing as a Mahāyāna text on the basis of its content. KYL recorded the length of the text as four sheets. Hayashiya maintains that, as all of Jingtai, DZKZM, and KYL show the same length, i.e., four sheets, the Da/xiao jian wang jing should be slightly less than approx. three and a half Taishō registers long. Then he points out that the Jian wang jing 諫王經 T514 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 has just about that length. Based on this, Hayashiya asserts that this text in the Taishō is the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing listed in the catalogues. He argues that the ascription of the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 must be wrong, because the style of language in T514 is that of the very early W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period, and therefore cannot be Jingsheng’s; and because it was already listed in Dao'an's catalogue. Hayashiya concludes that the Da/xiao jian wang jing/Jian wang jing should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 707-714 |
|
Hayashiya discusses the validity of LDSBJ’s ascriptions of titles in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録 to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. He deals with sixteen out of twenty-one such ascriptions, since the other five are discussed elsewhere (and established as incorrect). The sixteen titles are as follows (as shown in Dao'an's list, with the title in LDSBJ in brackets when it differs from Dao’an). Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 (The other five titles that LDSBJ ascribe to Jingsheng are: Pusa Shi jing 菩薩誓經, Shengsi bianshi jing 生死変識經, Zhangzhe yinyue jing 長者音悦經, Fanmo huang jing 梵摩皇經, and Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經.) Hayashiya maintains that, unless Fei Changfang 費長房 had reliable sources, it is difficult to believe that he found as many as twenty-one texts to be the works of Jingsheng without directly examining their contents, when Dao’an could not give specific ascriptions for the same texts. However, Fei’s source, namely the "separate catalogue" 別錄, viz., the “separate catalogue of the [Liu] Song canon” 宋時衆經別錄, which he briefly mentions at the end of the list of texts ascribed to Jingsheng, is unlikely to have given such ascriptions, for the following reasons: 1) if it had, those ascriptions should have been reflected in CSZJJ; and 2) since the “separate catalogue” was extant down to the Sui period and one of the important sources of Fajing, if the catalogue really had ascribed as many as twenty-one texts to Tanwulan, at least some of them should have been reflected in Fajing. Hayashiya adds that the unreliability of Fei’s ascriptions to Jingsheng is also shown in the fact that he sometimes even cites the same “separate catalogue” as the source of different ascriptions of the same text, e.g., of the Wu ku zhangju jing 五苦章句經 to Jingsheng and to Tanwulan. Hayashiya also points out that any texts included in Dao’an’s catalogue should not be works of Jingsheng, who was active under the Song 宋. He also rejects the possibility that the titles in LDSBJ refer to texts different from those listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, on the grounds that no catalogues preceding LDSBJ even suggested the existence of such texts. Next, Hayashiya discusses the language and style of those scriptures. He lists eleven extant texts out of the sixteen titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, and compares them with the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經, which has been established as the work of Jingsheng since CSZJJ. Hayashiya points out that, while the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing starts with 如是我聞 and uses vocabulary and terminology newer than that of the time of Kumārajīva 羅什, all of the eleven texts dubiously ascribed to Jingsheng start with 聞如是 and use vocabulary much older than that of the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing. Moreover, there are considerable discrepancies between the styles of these texts. Thus, Hayashiya asserts that the eleven texts in question are not the works of Jingsheng. They should be classified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Thus, Hayashiya summarises his reasons for rejecting LDSBJ’s ascriptions to Jingsheng as follows: 1. Jingsheng’s works could not have been included in Dao’an’s catalogue; Hayashiya adds that reliable ascriptions and dates of scriptures should be found by studying catalogues that were compiled honestly, not by believing what LDSBJ states. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
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. — 869 |
The 諫 王經 T514 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ is the Da xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 in Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄. According to Sakaino, the note on this title in LDSBJ (未詳大小) expresses doubt as to whether the text is really the same as the Da xiao jian wang jing listed by Dao’an. Sakaino points out that, whether or not the extant T514 is the Da xiao jian wang jing, it is clear that Fei took the entry from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts, as he imports most of the titles in the section 段 where the Da xiao jian wang jing is listed by Sengyou into his list of works that he ascribes to Juqu Jingsheng. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 866-871 |
|
Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 added in LDSBJ are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ or Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single or several translators. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Juqu Jingsheng is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Most of the titles newly ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng by Fei were actually taken either from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts 道安失譯錄 (21 titles) or from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄 (10 titles). Sakaino claims that it is clear that Fei just took the entry baselessly from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts, since too many titles were newly given the ascription by Fei, and, furthermore, Fei imports most of the titles in a particular section 段 in the catalogue into his list of works that he ascribes to Juqu Jingsheng. To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists all the 35 titles that Fei listed as Juqu Jingsheng’s work, indicating which ones were taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous texts and which ones were from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” (868-869). Sakaino asserts that 4 titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng in CSZJJ (3 extant, 1 lost) are the only reliable record of Juqu Jingsheng’s work (871). 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 Da xiao jian wang jing 大小諫王經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 今有諫王經一卷未詳大小; 17b1. 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 identified by Hayashiya with the Jian wang jing 諫王經 T514, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2023] Nattier, Jan. "The 'Missing Majority': Dao'an's Anonymous Scriptures Revisted." In Chinese Buddhism and the Scholarship of Erik Zürcher, edited by Jonathan Silk and Stefano Zacchetti, 94-140. Leiden: Brill, 2023. — 104 n. 28 |
Citing personal communication from Antonello Palumbo, Nattier mentions T514 as a possible case in which the formula 如是我聞 might have been added to an earlier text in the course of transmission. The Song, Yuan, Ming and Palace editions all have 聞如是. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|