| Identifier | T0016 [T] |
| Title | 尸迦羅越六方禮經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Saitō 2013 ] |
| 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 |
[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 安世高 as reliable. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[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 |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 27a4 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, a title possibly to be identified with T16 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): 尸迦羅越六向拜經一卷(與護公大六拜事同辭異). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Ui 1971] Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971. — 437-438 |
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 were wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains one by one why those ascriptions are incorrect. - Sengyou lists a Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing 尸迦羅越六向拝經 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 notes that the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing is a translation of the same text as the Da liu xiang bai jing 大六向拝經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 法護. - Sengyou saw the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing, but Dao’an did not, since Sengyou’s “Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations” is Sengyou’s own work, and does not rely on Dao’an. (895 of the scriptures included in Sengyou’s new list of anonymous translations were seen by Sengyou, while 675 of them were missing.) - LDSBJ then lists the Shijialuoyue liu xiang bai jing as An Shigao’s work, stating that it was from Dīrghāgama 長阿含, without providing any support for the ascription, - KYL gives the same ascription, citing LDSBJ. - The style and vocabulary of T16 are not that of An Shigao. Thus, the ascription 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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 52a15, 68a17-18, 63b2-3 |
The ascription of T16 to An Shigao found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. The same title is also given as an alternate title for T17; and for the 大六向拜經一卷 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 130b3-4 |
Given by Fajing as an alternate title for the 大六向拜, and treated as an “alternate translation of a separate chapter from the Dīrghāgama” 長阿含別品異譯, with an ascription to Dharmarakṣa, and various other alternate titles, in an interlinear note: 大六向拜經一卷(一名威花長者六向拜經一名尸迦羅越六向[v.l. 句 M]拜經)(晉世竺法護譯). However, we should note that the interlinear note in CSZJJ says that Dharmarakṣa’s version of the text is separate from this title. [Note: This title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 208-211 |
According to Saitō, there exist three alternate Chinese translations and a Pali parallel for the *Śṛgālavāda-sūtra. The verses in T16 are different from those in the other four versions with regard to content, and also form — only they have loose end rhymes 通押. In T16, after the normal ending of the text, verses consisting of eighty padas 句 (with eight padas per stanza, viz., ten stanza in total) appear, following the phrase 仏説唄偈. Saitō cites Akamatsu’s observation that “Mahāyāna” terms such as “six perfections” 六度 and deva among devas 天中天 are used in the verses of T16, and hence the text must have been modified sometime later than the production of the other four versions. Saitō agrees with Akamatsu to claim that T16 and its verses are not a work of the Latter Han period, and that the verses are clearly not An Shigao’s. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 208-211 |
According to Saitō, there exist three alternate Chinese translations and a Pali parallel for the *Śṛgālavāda-sūtra. The verses in T16 are different from those in the other four versions with regard to content, and also form — only they have loose end rhymes 通押. In T16, after the normal ending of the text, verses appear, consisting of eighty padas 句 (with eight padas per stanza, viz., ten stanzas in total), following the phrase 仏説唄偈. Saitō cites Akamatsu’s observation that “Mahāyāna” terms such as “six perfections” 六度 and “deva among devas” 天中天are used in the verses of T16, and hence the text must have been modified sometime later than the production of the other four versions. Saitō agrees with Akamatsu to claim that T16 and its verses are not a work of the Latter Han period, and that the verses are clearly not An Shigao’s. Subsequently, Saitō quotes the verses from T16 (1.251c19 - 1.252b01) with the rime 韻目 according to the Guang yun 広韻 and the yunbu 韻部 of the Liu, Song and N. Wei 劉宋北魏 for each pair of lines: 1 (the verses are quoted in full on 209-211) Both the form and the content 文意change every eight lines to make stanzas. Saitō states that usually, in Chinese verses, the rhyme changes when the subject changes. He judges that these are well-written verses, although the rhyme pattern is not strictly observed in Stanzas 4 and 5. Stanza 6 is the same as one in the Chan yao jing 禅要経 T609, an anonymous scripture supposedly of the Latter Han (211). Saitō claims that these verses were not in the original text, because they are not included in any of the other versions, and at the end of T16, appear only after the interlocutor (対告衆) [Śṛgāvāda 尸迦羅越] has paid respects to the Buddha and left. Saitō argues that the verses were probably inserted into T16 for ritual purposes, as part of Buddhist chanting/music such as ‘Indic’ hymns 梵唄. He supports this claim by referring to the example of the Changshou wang jing 長寿王経 T161, an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period, and the Chengyang zhu Fo gongde jing 称揚諸仏功徳経 T434, ascribed to Jijiaye 吉迦夜. In those texts, verses are taken from other texts, are put at the end after the main character in the text leaves. Similarly, T16 also has out-of-context verses at the end, which feature stanzas taken from other texts, e.g., the second one is similar to a verse in the Qi jie Fo ming jing 七階仏名経 by Xinxing 信行 of the “Three Stages” sect 三階経, and one from the “Wuchang jie” 無常偈 in the Wangsheng lizan jie 往生礼賛偈 by Shandao 善導. Saitō argues that those added verses played some role in rituals, e.g., as materials for chanting, which is why verses from other texts are often used (211). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 80-86 |
|
Sakaino Kōyō gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題である); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ. According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include: - “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經; Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82). Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82). For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.] In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyāna). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list: 23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha. 24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふべき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles. 17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyāna, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.] The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
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. — 741 |
Sakaino simply states that the Sīṅgālaka-sūtra 尸迦羅越經 in one juan ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Liu xiang li jing 六向禮經 [尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 ascribed to An Shigao], corresponding to the Shan sheng jing in the Dīrghāgama (DĀ 16) should not be ascribed to An Shigao, without giving reasons. 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. — 848 |
Sakaino states that the ascription of the Shijialuoyue liu fang li jing 尸迦羅越六方禮經 (T16 *Siṅgāla-sūtra) to An Shigao is dubious. The content of this scripture is the same as that of the Shan sheng jing 善生經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含經 T26(135). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
No |
[Kehong, d.u.] Kehong 可洪. Xinji zang jing yinyi suihan lu 新集藏經音義隨函錄 K1257. — T1257 (XXXV) 9b5-9 |
Kehong states that the portion of the *Śṛgālavāda-sūtra T16 leading up to the words 作禮而去 is authentic, but that the twelve lines of verse after that are an interpolation by an unidentified person 人撰未詳撰者. The language is vulgar 言語凡淺 and it is, in Kehong's opinion, obvious that these lines are spurious, i.e. not buddhavacana 偽妄顯然. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 |
[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. |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan has argued that some of the Buddhist terminology and general vocabulary in the Shijialuoyue liu fang li jing 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 is different from that found in the reliable translations of An Shigao. They refer to Li Yan 李妍. “Cong Fojiao shuyu kan yi wei jing bianbie" 從佛教術語看疑偽經辨別. Huibei shifan daxue xuebao (Shehui kexue ban) 淮北師範大學學報 (社會科學版) 4 (2012): 194–195. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Lu 1989] Lu, Cheng. “Dharmarakṣa.” In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Volume 4, edited by W. G. Weeraratne, 552–54. Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, 1989. — 553 |
Lu writes that ten texts ascribed to other translators in T have been "found" to be "translated by Dharmarakṣa". Lu gives no references or arguments in support of this assertion. The texts in question are: *Sigālovāda-sūtra 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|