| Identifier | T0554 [T] |
| Title | 佛說柰女耆婆經 [T] |
| Date | fifth century [Salguero 2009] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Salguero 2009] |
| Translator 譯 | An Shigao, 安世高 [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 |
[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 of this text to An Shigao as reliable. 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). — 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 |
|
|
No |
[Ui 1971] Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971. — 443-444 |
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 Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) 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 Nainü Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經in 1 juan, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, with an alternate title Nainü jing 奈女經. He also includes a Nainü jing 㮈女經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, stating that it is an excerpt from an āgama. - LDSBJ lists a Nainü Qiyu jing in 1 juan, and ascribes it to An Shigao. - LDSBJ includes a Nainü Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, stating in a note that it was translated in the Tai’an 太安 era (302-303 CE) and has the alternate title Nainü jing 奈女經, referring to Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 as its source. - KYL lists a Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing奈女祇域因縁經 ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate titleNainü jing 奈女經, following LDSBJ. - KYL also lists a Nainü Qiyu jing 㮈(奈)女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, with the alternate title Nainü jing 㮈(奈)女經 - The ascription of the Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) to An Shigao is incorrect and originates in LDSBJ. Fei somehow misunderstood Dharmarakṣa’s work as An Shigao’s. There is no record of this text being ascribed to An Shigao before LDSBJ. Thus, the ascription of T553 to An Shigao should be rejected. Ui further argues that T553 and T554 are the same text, which were taken as two different texts by some process of error or confusion during the transmission of the canon. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Nainü Qiyu jing柰女耆婆經 (T 554) to An Shigao are therefore as follows: - Ui points out the peculiar fact that two almost identical texts are entered in the Taishō, viz., the Nainü Qiyu jing 柰女耆婆經 (T 554) and the Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553), both ascribed incorrectly to An Shigao. CSZJJ records only one Nainü jing 㮈女經 in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and LDSBJ lists only one Nainü Qiyu jing 㮈女祇域經 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao. - Although Ui concedes that it is difficult to know how T553 and T554 came to be treated separately, he points out that they came from different Tripitakas: T553 is the version in S and Y, and T554 is from M (no version of the text is included in K). Thus, the ascription of both T554 and T553 to An Shigao should be rejected. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Salguero 2014] Salguero, C. Pierce. Translating Buddhist Medicine in Medieval China. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. — 46-47; 161 n. 14; 76-78; 166 n. 28; 126 |
Salguero says that Dharmarakṣa “should...be credited with the translation of” T701 and “some portion of” T553 and T554, “both texts that are erroneously attributed to An Shigao”. On this attribution for T701, he cites Demiéville (1985): 74; Boucher (1996): 278; and Heirman and Torck (2012): 56-57 n. 39. On T553/T554, he cites Salguero (2009). He adds (126): "In reality, the contents [of T553/T554] represent a patchwork of material cherry-picked from various sources, including perhaps a text translated by Dharmarakṣa's team in the third to fourth centuries, but certainly excerpts from Vinaya texts and adaptations of material from biographies of famous Chinese physicians found in the secular dynastic histories." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Salguero 2009] Salguero, C. Pierce. "The Buddhist Medicine King in Literary Context: Reconsidering an Early Medieval Example of Indian Influence on Chinese Medicine and Surgery." History of Religions 48, no. 3 (2009): 183-210. — 186-189 |
The Āmrapalī and Jīvaka Avadāna Sūtra (Fo shuo Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing, T. 553) and the Āmrapāli and Jīvaka Sūtra (Fo shuo Nainü Qipo jing T554) are very similar, differing only in minor details, so that they cannot be regarded as independent translations or compositions, but rather, constitute variant transmissions of the same basic text. Both texts are one fascicle long, tell of Jīvaka’s life and healing exploits, refer to him the “Medicine King,” and are named after Jivaka and his mother Āmrapālī. T553 is considerably longer than T554, and contains interpolations from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 T1428. [Salguero does not specify where these overlapping passages appear in either text, nor his reasons for thinking that the direction of borrowing or influence could not be --- as would be chronologically easier to understand --- T553 → T1428 --- MR.] In addition, there are occasional divergences in Chinese characters and phrasing which Salguero writes are “probably due to scribal error or correction.” Tradition ascribes the translation of the Jīvaka Sūtra (both T553 and T554) to An Shigao, but Salguero writes that we cannot accept this attribution. He notes that Zürcher’s definitive list of sixteen extant texts which can be reliably attributed to An Shigao does not include the Jīvaka Sūtra (Zürcher, 1992). Salguero finds no evidence that this text existed in the Eastern Han, when An Shigao worked at Luoyang. The first references to the full title, Āmrapāli and Jīvaka Avadāna Sūtra, do not appear until the Tang. The shorter Jīvaka Sūtra T553 is reproduced in a Liang Dynasty Buddhist encyclopaedia (which Salguero does not name [but referring almost certainly to the 經律異相 T2121 (LIII) 166c17-170a9 --- MR]). CSZJJ lists the Amrapāli and Jīvaka Sūtra [奈女耆域經一卷(或云奈女經, T2145 (LV) 8b1], but notably does not list the text among those translated by An Shigao. Instead, Sengyou attributes it to Dharmarakṣa, on the basis of Dao’an’s catalogue. Attributions to An Shigao, however, “also become commonplace by the Tang.” Attribution to An Shigao has remained dominant, and is “repeated in all reference books in Chinese or European languages” that Salguero consulted in preparing his article. [NOTE: For the exact title in CSZJJ, viz., 奈女耆域經, Fajing still carries the attribution to Dharmarakṣa, T2146 (LV) 128a21; so too does LDSBJ, T2034 (XLIX) 63c7; Yancong, T2147 (LV) 154b3-4; Jingtai, T2148 (LV) 186c18; DTNDL, T2149 (LV) 234b9, 299a6-7, 322c29; Gu jin yi jing tu ji, T2151 (LV) 353c3. This makes it appear that the ascription to An Shigao is first carried by DZKZM, T2153 (LV) 417b28-29, but a note there says that the ascription is taken from LDSBJ. However, the problem is a confusion of title, and as so often, the trouble does indeed trace back to LDSBJ, who gives the ascription to An Shigao under the title 㮈女祇域經, T2034 (XLIX) 52a5. Salguero's handling of this information, p. 188 and n. 16, is confused somewhat by his treatment of LDSBJ as "dating to the Tang", and his omission of Fajing and Yancong from his survey --- MR.] Following Zysk, Salguero notes that at loci in the Sarvāstivada Vinaya T1421 and the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya T1435 where we would expect to find the Jīvaka narrative, it is missing (“has been removed.....excised”). Salguero writes, with apparent approval, "Zysk speculates that in China the Jīvaka story was excised from this original location due to its popularity (or, I would add, its potential for popularization)." [However, Salguero does not make clear the relation between this speculation and T553/T554, nor, alternatively, the form and location in which the resulting “independent sūtra in its own right” is supposed to have circulated. From his arguments later in the article (see below), we presumably should infer that this supposed "independent sūtra" is precisely T553/T554. --- MR] Salguero points out that the transcription 祇域 for Jīvaka's name is extremely rare. He says "it appears only in the Jīvaka sūtra and in one other composition from the Northern Wei dynasty", 192. [Salguero does not specify what that other texts is; in fact, it appears only in T553, not T554; and aside from T553, in two texts, MPPU T1509, and the "Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish" T202. --- MR] Salguero suggests, "This may provide a clue as to the provenance of the Jīvaka Sūtra, suggesting a temporal and possibly even a geographic range for the production of the extant texts" (192) [sic plural, even though this detail only appears in T553; Salguero does not specify here what place or time this clue would point to --- MR]. [By contrast, 耆婆 for Jīvaka's name, found in T554, is common, but seems to be unknown before the fifth century. --- MR.] Salguero discusses a range of medical ideas that may suggest that some of the text is of Chinese origin, including acupuncture needles (195), terms like 藥方 and 針脈 (196) or the 五臟 (200), a reference [unique in translation literature] to the 本草經 (197), and a diagnosis in terms of qi 反戾向後，氣結不通故死 (200). Salguero summarises his conclusions about the date and provenance of the two texts, and their relative priority, as follows: "A watertight argument for the dating of the received versions of the Jīvaka Sūtra remains impossible....While pinpointing the provenance more narrowly must remain speculative, I believe the evidence outlined above suggests that the shorter Jīvaka Sūtra [viz. T554] is a composite text made up of selections of the Medicine King's hagiography from a number of sources translated in the early medieval period (including a fourth-century [sic? --- Dharmarakṣa was active a few years into the fourth century, but the bulk of his career falls in the third --- MR] text by Zhu Fahu [Dharmarakṣa], and possibly other versions of the tale excised from the Vinayas), brought together with the addition of apocryphal material in the fifth century. I take the longer version of the Jīvaka Sūtra [viz. T553] to be a later, re-edited version of this same text that incorporated the passages from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, which was possibly compiled in the Northern Wei, and which was available by the Tang" (192). [NOTE: Salguero shows no textual evidence of a connection between T554 and T1421 or T1435, nor details of the connection between T553 and T1428, as noted above; he shows no stylistic evidence associating either text with Dharmarakṣa, nor stylistic evidence dissociating them from An Shigao; he gives no evidence, that I can find, connecting T553 to the N. Wei, unless he means the single appearance of 祇域 in T202. --- MR] Given Jīvaka’s position as the “Medicine King” Salguero suggests that An Shigao may have seemed a logical person to associate with the translation, because he too was said to have possessed great medical knowledge. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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 |
|