| Identifier | T0500 [T] |
| Title | 羅云忍辱經 [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 | Faju 法炬 [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 |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
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 |
[Nattier 2014] Nattier, Jan. “Now You Hear It, Now You Don’t: The Phrase ‘Thus Have I Heard’ in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations.” In Buddhism Across Asia: Networks of Material, Intellectual and Cultural Exchange, edited by Tansen Sen, 39-64. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2014. — 45 |
Nattier notes briefly that the 羅云忍辱經 T500 is ascribed to Faju 法炬 in the Taishō, but treated as anonymous by Dao'an. Nattier also notes that this text is one of only four translation texts featuring a highly unusual version of the opening formula, evaṃ mayā śrutam: 阿難曰：吾[昔]從佛聞如是. The other texts are the 溫室洗浴眾僧經 T701, ascribed to An Shigao 安世高; the 出曜經 (Udānavarga) T212, ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念; and the 中本起經 T196 by Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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). — 70, 345 n. 254 |
|
"Dao’an only speaks about four works translated in the period 290-360 by Faju 法炬, a monk of unknown origin, and about two others translated by Faju together with the śramaṇa Fali 法立.... Later bibliographies have made Faju...the target of...wild attributions: no less than 132 works figure under his name in the late sixth century [LDSBJ], which number is reduced to 40 in the somewhat more critical [KYL]" (70). [MR: In fact, the passage in CSZJJ referred to in Zürcher's note (345 n. 254) shows that Zürcher has made an error here; the two texts supposedly translated with Faju were *among* the four translated by Fali (右四部。凡十二卷。晉惠懷時。沙門法炬譯出。其法句喻福田二經。炬與沙門法立共譯出; T2145:55.9c19-10a3), reducing the total number of ascriptions supported by this evidence even further. The four texts listed are: 樓炭經 (prob. = *Lokasthāna[?] 大樓炭經 T23) The main significance of Zürcher's remark is negative---the remaining ascriptions to Faju and Fali in the modern (Taishō) canon should be regarded as weaker and more open to suspicion. This record lists all such texts: T33, T34, T39, T49, T55, T64, T65, T70, T111, T113, T119, T122, T133, T178, T215, T332, T500, T501, T502, T503, T508, T509, T695, T739. However, we should also note that Zürcher adds:] "Sengyou states that Fali made a great number of translations which were lost during the troubles of the yongjia era (307-313) before they had been copied and put into circulation, a remark which is repeated by Huijiao in his Gaoseng zhuan....It may...have happened that some works were rediscovered at a rather later date, but Sengyou's silence about Faju remains puzzling. Dao'an's catalouge, our invaluable guide for the early period, gives out around 300 AD; although Dao'an compiled it at Xiangyang in 374 and probably added new entries until his death in 385, he did not include any works translated after the end of the Western Jin." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 940-944 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this 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: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, : Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DTNDL 内典錄, KYL 開元錄 and the Taishō: Hayashiya compares T500 with Faju's surviving translations, viz., the Zhude futian jing 諸徳福田經 T683 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喩經 T211. They share some vocabulary, but Hayashiya claims that this could be because they belong to roughly the same period (as evidenced by the fact that all of them are in Dao’an’s list). Hayashiya further claims that on the whole, the vocabulary and tone of T500 is quite different from that of T211 and T683, while the latter two texts are clearly composed by the same person. Thus, LDSBJ’s attribution of the Ren ru jing to Faju must be wrong. Hayashiya also maintains that that the Luoyun ren ru jing 羅云忍辱經in the Taishō is the same text that features in various catalogues since Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures. His reason for this is as follows: it is clear that there existed no alternate translations, because the text was classified as a single Hīnayāna text in the catalogues down to Jingtai. Now, Jingtai, DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄, and KYL record the length of the text as three sheets, which is about two and half registers long in the Taishō. T500 has just about that length. Thus, it is safe to say that T500 is the same text that was noted since the time of Sengyou, and should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Apart from this Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經, Hayashiya also mentions a Ren ru jing 忍辱經 listed in the "catalogue of separately circulating offshoot scriptures" 支派別行經錄 of KYL. He claims that this text was taken from the Ren ru chapter (Ch. 30) 忍辱品第十三 of the Xiuxing daodi jing 修行道地經 (Yogācārabhūmi) T606, and that this text should not be identified wiht the title Ren ru jing 忍辱經 in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. This is because that Ren ru pin 忍辱品 is a small text, even shorter than eight line in the Taishō, and it is therefore unlikely that this text was recorded as an independent text by Sengyou. 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. — 152-159 |
|
Sakaino presents a list of 132 texts that LDSBJ newly ascribed to Faju, and points out that almost all of them (129 titles) were taken from the Sengyou’s “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 續 失譯錄 in CSZJJ (one was taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄). Sakaino also demonstrates that in assigning these new ascriptions, Fei arbitrarily took titles in groups, holus-bolus, from certain concentrated sections of Sengyou’s list. This is part of a broader pattern that Sakaino studies at several points in his book (see esp. 80-86), in which he identifies such group-wise reassignment of texts from Sengyou’s anonymous lists to single translators as characteristic of Fei Changfang’s working pattern. He points out that Sengyou’s list was organised by topic, as it could be inferred from the titles of texts, and not by translator (as it could not be, since Sengyou was explicitly stating that he did not know who the translator was); this makes it all the more improbable that texts due to single translators would be clustered in the list in the manner required by Fei’s re-ascriptions. In Faju’s case, for instance, this has the absurd consequence of making him appear to be a specialist in translations of texts that happen to have the word bhikṣu 比丘 in the title. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 66c22, 116c25 |
The ascription of T500 to Faju found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. The same title is incongruously treated as anonymous in Fascicle 14. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 130c8 |
This title (T550) is treated as anonymous in Fajing, where it appears as an alternate title for the 羅雲忍[+辱 SYM]經一卷(一名忍辱經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 28a19 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, a title almost certainly to be identified with T500 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): 忍辱經一卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 Luoyun ren ru jing 羅芸忍辱經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17c19. 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 Luoyun ren ru jing 羅云忍辱經 T500, attributed in the present canon (T) to Faju 法炬. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|