| Identifier | T0535 [T] |
| Title | 佛說申日經 [T] |
| Date | 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Zürcher 1959/2007] |
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 |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Zürcher 1982] Zürcher, Erik. “Prince Moonlight: Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” T'oung-pao 68 (1982): 1–59. — 23 n. 41, 22-24 |
"I must correct the statement, made there [in Conquest], that T535 probably was translated by Zhi Qian in the third century: the so-called Zhi Qian version mentioned in Buddhist bibliographies appears to be identical with T169..." Some of the reasons Zürcher gives to doubt the ascription to Dharmarakṣa are compelling. The prediction of Yueguang's future life in China occurs in T535 but not in T534 (its cousin, also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa). Zürcher confines himself to saying that the parts concerning Candraprabha's future lives etc. are "apocryphal interpolations of Chinese origin", but does not go so far as to say that the entire texts are apocryphal. Cf. also Hayashiya (1945): 410–435. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 835-837 |
According to Hayashiya, the Shenri jing 申日經 is listed in Sengyou's 僧祐 recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 and was extant in the time of Sengyou. It is difficult to discuss the ascription of this text without mentioning some other texts, because there also existed alternate translations, such as the Shenri dou ben jing 申日兜本經 and the Shiliyue jing 失利越經. Further, there are overlapping descriptions in some catalogues between this text and the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經, and the Yueguang tongzi jing was also sometimes thought of as an alternate translation of the Shenri jing due to the fact that in the catalogues in and after the Sui 隋 period, the Yueming tongzi jing 月明童子經 is also called the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經. Hayashiya refers to his own 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 7 for a detailed examination. Hayashiya argues that T535, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, is not the same text as the Shenri jing 申日經 recorded in Daoan’s list. The vocabulary and tone of the text are clearly not that of Dharmarakṣa. They are not Zhi Qian's, either, as can be seen by comparison with the vocabulary and tone of his Yueming pusa jing 月明菩薩經. Thus, both LDSBJ 三寶記 and KYL 開元錄 are incorrect: The former ascribes the text to Zhi Qian 支謙 and the latter to Dharmarakṣa. The Shenri jing 申日經 therefore should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or the W. Jin 西晋 period. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Buswell 1990b] Buswell, Robert. "Introduction: Prolegomenon to the Study of Buddhist Apocryphal Scriptures." In Buswell 1990, 1-30. — 10 |
Buswell notes in passing that the Yueguang tongzi jing (Candraprabhākumāra; in two versions, both ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, viz. 月光童子經 T534, 申日經 T535) is an apocryphon. He adds that the series of texts on Prince Moonlight “seems to have been modelled on Confucian prognostication texts (tuchen)”. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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). — 315 and esp. 438-439 n. 139; 437-438 n. 130 |
Zürcher suggests that the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 was translated by Zhi Qian, rather than Dharmarakṣa. He notes that the Shenri jing is a condensed and developed version of the Yueguang tongzhi jing 月光童子經 T534, which is “unanimously ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.” Zürcher notes that the early catalogues (CSZJJ II 6.3.26; T2146 ch. I p. 115.3.22 etc.) discuss a text titled Yueming tongzi jing, said to be translated by Zhi Qian; Zürcher sees Yueming tongzi jing as "clearly a variant title" of the Shenri jing. Furthermore, he says, it is unlikely that Dharmarakṣa translated the same text twice. The Shenri jing contains a translator’s “or editor’s” note which reads: “in the language of Han this means yueguang tongzhi, ‘the boy (named) Moon-light.’” Zürcher adds that the tradition in Buddhist texts to refer to the Chinese language as “the language of (the reigning dynasty) X”, which would suggest that the text was translated under the Han, whereas Dharmarakṣa’s translating period fell roughly under the western Jin. However, Zürcher later retracted his argument in: Zürcher, Erik. “Prince Moonlight: Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” T'oung-pao 68 (1982): 1–59. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 54-55 n. 27 |
|
The eighteen texts listed in this entry, Mei observes, are ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in the present Taishō, but not by CSZJJ. The majority of these texts, Mei suggests, did already exist at Sengyou's time, but Sengyou listed them as anonymous. Thus, Mei argues that further research is required to determine whether or not these texts really are by Dharmarakṣa. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 410-435 |
According to Hayashiya, there exist only three alternate translations of the Shenri jing 申日經: Yueguang tongzi jing/Yueming tongzi jing 月光童子經/月明童子經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa; The first two of these are listed by Dao’an, and the third first appears in the recompilation of the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄of CSZJJ (with a mistaken title Shenri dou benjing 申日兜本經 given by Sengyou). Although there is one more text in the group, Shiliyue jing 失利越經, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period or earlier, Hayashiya points out that this text was already lost at the time of Sengyou and has not been found since. Hayashiya maintains that any other ascriptions or texts appear in the catalogues are incorrect or redundant and should be excised (for example, LDSBJ ascribes the Shenri jing to Zhi Qian, and a Shendou ben jing 申兜本經 = Shenri er bing jing 申日兒本經 to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, but Hayashiya rejects both of these ascriptions as groundless.) In the Taishō, there exist the following three texts: Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa Hayashiya compares the style and vocabulary of these texts with the Sheng jing 生經 T154, a text that he regards as an established Dharmarakṣa translation, in order to see which one of the three is really Dharmarakṣa’s work. Based on this comparison, Hayashiya asserts that T534 is indeed the work of Dharmarakṣa, because T534 and T154 share quite a few words and phrases. The phraseology Hayashiya adduces is as follows:聞如是, 一時佛遊(在), 王舍城, 羅閱(大)城, 靈鷲山, 與大比丘衆, 應真/羅漢, 世尊, 不蘭迦葉, 申日, 長者, 梵志, 如來, 月光, 慈悲喜護, 三達六通, 三十三天, 忉利天, 地獄, 緣覺, 菩薩, (vs. 開士 in T535), 梵釋天王 (sic, does not actually appear in the text), 閱叉, 金翅, 厭鬼魅鬼, 無常、苦、空、非身, 唯然, 阿僧祇劫, 莫不歡喜, 稽首作禮而去, 無上正真之獨明, 大千剎 (430-432). Hayashiya admits that there is a problem in identifying Dharmarakṣa’s work, which is that his vocabulary can vary according to the year of production and amanuenses, and that T534, as well as T535 and T536, contain a number of words and phrases that never appear in any other Mahāyāna texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Nonetheless, Hayashiya argues that T534 is Dharmarakṣa’s work, because the positive match of the vocabulary is good enough, and the text has been consistently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa since Jingtai (422-423). According to Hayashiya, it is also slightly odd that the name Yueming 月明 does not appear inT534, since the original title of the text was Yueming tongzi jing 月明童子經, as listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. However, it does not affect the ascription of the text because there is no other candidate for the Yueguang tongzi jing/Yueming tongzi jing. Hayashiya asserts that T535 and T536 are also translations of the W. Jin period or earlier, based on the textual comparison. Further, he claims that T535 is most likely to have originally been entitled Shenri er ben jing, while T536 should have been called Shenri jing 申日經, since the former focuses on Shenri’s 申日 son 兒, and the latter on Shenri himself. Hayashiya thinks that the ascriptions that the Taishō gives to T535 and T536 are incorrect. The ascription of T535 to Dharmarakṣa is to be rejected since there is only one work of Dharmarakṣa in the group recorded in the foregoing catalogues, namely T534. The ascription of T536 to Guṇabhadra comes from LDSBJ, as mentioned above, and is groundless. Thus, according to Hayashiya, the correct titles and ascriptions of T534, T535, and T536 are as follows: T534: Dharmarakṣa; Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Buswell 2004] Buswell, Robert E., Jr. "Sugi's Collation Notes to the Koryŏ Buddhist Canon and Their Significance for Buddhist Textual Criticism." The Journal of Korean Studies 9, no. 1 (2004): 129-184. — 146, 157 |
The ascription of this text to Dharmarakṣa was problematised by the fact that the Kaibao canon already included an alternate *Candraprabhakumāra-sūtra also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, viz. 月光童子經 T534. Buswell reports that Sugi noted that earlier catalogues had included a translation by Zhi Qian of a 申日經 which was missing from canons known to him, and therefore suggested that T535 might be Zhi Qian's version. Sugi notes that his suggestions are tentative (he "leaves it for 'later sages' to decide"). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — Volume 6, p.163-164 |
Satō Ryōchi 佐藤良智 points out that the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents [all are regarded loosely as alternate versions of the Candraprabhakumāra-sūtra], and that T536 should be the oldest of the three since it has the simplest story and wording. Satō also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is apocryphal, created by re-writing 改作 T536. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — vol. 6, pp. 163-164 |
Satō Ryōchi 佐藤良智 points out that the 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents, and that T536 should be the oldest of the three, since it has the simplest story and wording. Satō also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is an apocryphon that was created by re-writing 改作 T536. He adds that 兒 in the title 申日兒本經 is written 兜 in CSZJJ and some other catalogues, and that those three scriptures are a clear example of the development of a group of scriptures over time. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 247 |
The Shenri jing 申日經 (Candraprabhākumāra) T535 is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. An older version of the text also exists, the Shenri’er ben jing 申日兒本經 (T536), as well as newer versions, the Yueguang tongyi jing 月光童子經 (T534, also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa) and the Dehu zhangzhe jing 德護長者經 (T545). Ōno also states that T535 and T534 are old translations, since they are listed in Dao’an’s catalogue as anonymous scriptures, and that the ascription of those two to Dharmarakṣa in the Taishō is incorrect. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — Volume 6, p.163-164 |
Ryōchi Satō 佐藤良智 points out that the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 T534 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa share the same contents [all are regarded loosely as alternate versions of the Candraprabhakumāra-sūtra], and that T536 should be the oldest of the three since it has the simplest story and wording. Satō also claims that some parts of T535 suggest that the text is apocryphal, created by re-writing 改作 T536. 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 Shenri jing 申日經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出中阿含; 16c23. 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 Shenri jing 申日經 T535, attributed in the present canon (T) to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Shi Zhanghui 2004] Shi Zhanghui 釋章慧. “Shenyue jing jingben dingwei yu jingti kao 《申曰經》經本定位與經題考.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies 中華佛學研究 8 (2004): 51-100. |
In this paper, Ven. Zhanghui argues against an assertion made by Hayashiya Tomojirō in Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū 異譯經類の研究 (1945). Hayashiya claims that the titles of the Shenri jing 申日經 T535 and the Shenri'er ben jing 申日兒本經 T536 have been swapped. Zhanghui argues that Hayashiya misunderstands the records in KYL, leading him to argue incorrectly (see also separate entry on T536). Additionally, Zhanghui points out that the two titles should be corrected respectively to Shenyue jing 申曰經 and Shenyuedou benjing 申曰兜本經. [But see below for a qualm about this argument in application to T535. --- MR] Zhanghui claims that 申曰/申曰兜 are transcriptions of the proper name Śrīgup/Śrīgupta or Sirigut/Sirigutta in Indic languages, and that the substitutions of 日 and 兒 for 曰 and 兜 are likely later errors (63, 74-75). Zhanghui bases her analysis on evidence from multiple Buddhist catalogues, Āgama texts and prefaces, quotations from Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, and various editions of KYSJL found in different versions of the canon. Zhanghui's arguments about the titles aim to refute the old arguments by Hayashiya that the titles of T535 and T536 had been switched. On the assumption that the title including er 兒 "son" was correct, Hayashiya's idea was that idea that a text bearing that title should revolve around the son as the central character, and the content of T535 precisely accords with that title, focusing on the son. On the basis of her argument that the name transcribed in the title should in fact be Shenyuedou 申曰兜, Zhanghui holds that there are no longer grounds to reverse the titles of T535 and T536. Zhanghui further claims that our present T535 is most likely not the text witnessed under the title Shenri jing/Shenyue jing in the catalogues, as most catalogues state that the Shenri jing and the Yueguang tongzi jing 月光童子經 (the same title as T534) are alternate titles for the same text. Since that text is already accounted for in the present canon by T534, there should exist no separate text under the alternate title, namely Shenri jing (as the present T535). Hence, the present T535 was probably a later addition to the canon. However, KYSJL, in the edition in T, presents contradictory records about these titles in Chapter 19 Ruzang lu 入藏錄, and Chapter 20 Ruzang lu 入藏錄. Further contradictions exist between KYSJL and the reports of other Buddhist catalogues. KYSJL Chapter 19 records both a five-folio Shenri jing and a nine-folio Yueguang tongzi jing/Shenri jing, thus recognizing two different texts. By contrast, Chapter 20 suggests that the title Shenri jing 申日經 should be deleted, since they are merely the same text, but with two alternate titles (p.64-65). To address this contradiction, Zhanghui consults other editions of KYSJL in the Korean Canon 高麗藏 and the Qisha Canon 磧砂藏, the Yongle Northern Canon 永樂北藏, and the Qianlong Canon 龍藏. Zhanghui finds that a Shenri jing was listed in addition to other scriptures in all these versions of the canon, but the total number of relevant texts changes accordingly in the Korean Canon only. This evidence, Zhanghui argues, indicates that deliberate revisions were made to KYSJL (p.66-68). Additionally, subsequent Buddhist catalogues that inherit information from KYSJL, such as Yuanzhao's 圓照 Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao jiao lu 貞元新定釋腳錄 and Xuanyi's 玄逸 Da Tang Kaiyuan Shijiao guangpin lizhang 大唐開元釋教廣品歷章 do not include the Shenri jing 申日經. Neither do Huilin's 慧琳 Yiqiejing yin yi 一切經音義 and Kehong's 可洪 Xinji zangjing yinyi suihan lu新集藏經音義隨函錄, which are both based on Zhisheng's Ruzang lu 入藏錄. Therefore, it is most likely that there was originally no separate text entitled Shenri jing, and the extant T535 is a text that Zhisheng 智昇 did not intend to include in the canon. [Note: If T535 is indeed so late, it is difficult to see how Zhanghui's argument about the transcribed name in the title of T536 would also imply that the title of T535 needs to be "corrected" --- it appears from Zhanghui's own arguments that by the time she thinks T535 would have entered circulation, the form Shenri was also well established. --- MR] Entry author: Chengpeng Li |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — vol. 2 p. 76 |
Izumi Hōkei writes, without further arguments, that the ascription of T535 to Dharmarakṣa is probably mistaken, and the text should instead be ascribed to Zhi Qian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|