| Identifier | T0089 [T] |
| Title | 八關齋經 [T] |
| Date | W. Jin 西晋 [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 |
[Mizuno 1989] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. "Kan'yaku Chū agon kyō to Zōichi agon kyō 漢訳『中阿含経』と『増一阿含経』." Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 18 (1989): 1-42[L]. Chinese translation: "Hanyi Zhong ahan jing yu Zengyi ahan jing 漢譯《中阿含經》與《増一阿含經》," in Shuiye Hongyuan [=Mizuno Kōgen ], Fojiao wenxian yanjiu: Shuiye Hongyuan zhuzuo xuanji (1) 佛教文獻研究‧水 野 弘 元 著 作 選 集( 一), translated by Xu Yangzhu 許洋主, 509-579. Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2003. — passim |
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva, and attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for the (largely) lost EĀ (arguments for the lost MĀ are treated in a separate entry). Records attesting to a possible second EĀ translation (hereafter "EĀ-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Saṅghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Saṅghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Saṅghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text. Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Saṅghadeva’s second translations. This judgement is based upon the contrast with another set of sūtras. Mizuno surveys the single sūtras in the MĀ section and EĀ section of the Taishō (T27-98 for MĀ and T126-151 for EĀ), and proposes that the following texts all share a uniform style that he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]: EĀ-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684. (Mizuno also regards the following texts as comprising "MĀ-alt", and evincing the same style: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.) Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.] Among the 20 EĀ-alt sūtras, 19 are recorded as anonymous in Sengyou’s own „Shiyi zajing lu” 失譯雜經錄in CSZJJ, while 1 was recorded in Dao’an’s “Angong guyijing lu” 安公古異經錄. Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taishō for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ. Next, Mizuno also examines the excerpts in the Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed to MĀ and EĀ by Baochang. Mizuno lists 15 from EĀ. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon, specifically T119, which is one of the EĀ-alt sūtras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SĀ excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the EĀ entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first EĀ translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. [A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Saṅghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EĀ-alt and MĀ-alt sūtras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 30b5 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T89 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): 八關齋經一卷(異出). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 714-722 |
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 lists a Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. He also lists another Ba guan zhai jing in the category of extant scriptures in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄 with a note saying “alternate issue” 異出. Hayashiya points out that there were thus two different Ba guan zhai jing at the time of Sengyou, since both were extant and Sengyou states that one of them is 異出. However, Fajing does not take the view that there are two Ba guan zhai jing, but regards “Ba guan zhai jing” as one of the two alternate titles of the Zhai jing 齋經 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, a text which is listed in his “catalogue of the Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka” 小乗修多羅藏錄. (The other alternate title of the Zhai jing shown by Fajing is Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優婆夷堕舎迦經.) Hayashiya points out that the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian is included in Dao’an’s catalogue, but was lost at the time of Sengyou. Hence, even if the Zhai jing and the Ba guan zhai jing were the same text, Sengyou would not have known it. The same can be said about the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, Hayashiya adds, because Sengyou includes the title in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄 as an unseen scripture 未見經, so its alleged identity with the Zhai jing could not have been known to Sengyou. Nonetheless, Hayashiya asserts that Fajing’s treatment of the Ba guan zhai jing, viz., regarding the title merely as an alternate title of the Zhai jing, is unjustified, since there are two different Ba guan zhai jing in Sengyou. Hayashiya then examines three texts in the Taishō: the Zhai jing 齋經 T87 ascribed to Zhi Qian, the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優陂夷墮舍迦經 T88, shown as an anonymous scripture of the Song 宋 period, and the Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 T89 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. The contents of all these three texts are about the ba guan zhai 八關齋 (eight precepts for poṣadha days), so it would make sense to call any of them Zhai jing, Ba guan zhai jing, or Zhai fa jing 齋法經. In addition, T88 contains the name of woman called Duoshejia 墮舍迦, so among the three texts it is the most suitable one to be called Youpoyi Duoshejia jing 優陂夷墮舍迦經. According to Hayashiya, the style of T87, T88, and T89 are that of the W. Jin 西晋 or of the Three Kingdoms 三國 period, so none of these texts should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the Song period, or as a work of Zhi Qian. Given the period in which they were produced, two of the three texts in the Taishō should be the Zhai jing and Ba guan zhai jing listed by Dao’an. Hayashiya infers that Sengyou found the third one and included it as the second Ba guan zhai jing with the comment 異出, adding that Sengyou probably did not know that one of the three texts could also be called Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, and therefore listed the title separately as unseen. Hayashiya states that Fajing’s mistake in regarding the three titles as referring to one and the same text is understandable, because Fajing's is a catalogue compiled through discussions between scholars without directly consulting texts, and all three extant alternate translations could well be called Ba guan zhai jing.Furthermore, T88 and T87 explain the same subject matter: that the benefit of keeping the poṣadha precepts 齋 is greater than that of all the wise people in the sixteen great states 十六大國. Nonetheless, Hayashiya affirms that it is clear from Sengyou’s record that there were two Ba guan zhai jing. Yancong and Jingtai recorded the text in the same fashion as Fajing, viz., listing only the Zhai jing 齋經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, while treating the Ba guan zhai jing and the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing as its alternate titles. Jingtai shows the length of the text as four sheets. Based on this length, Hayashiya claims that the entry in Jingtai should be for T87, which has a length of approximately three and a half registers (T88 is shorter than three registers, T89 is shorter than one and a half registers). LDSBJ lists the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian (with an alternate title Chi zhai jing 持齋經) and the Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 ascribed to Jingsheng, but does not mention the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing. Hayashiya points out that although the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in LDSBJ may appear to be taken from the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures by Sengyou, because the comment 異出 is appended to it, this is not likely, because 異出 in LDSBJ would be meaningless given that the first Ba guan zhai jing is omitted. Hayashiya then considers two possibilities regarding the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in LDSBJ: The entry was taken from Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures with the comment 異出 added by mistake, or Fei Changfang 費長房 was influenced by Fajing in supposing the existence of only one Ba guan zhai jing and accordingly mixed up the two Ba guan zhai jing in Sengyou/ Dao'an. Hayashiya conjectures that the first possibility is more plausible, since among titles ascribed to Jingsheng in LDSBJ, as many as twenty are taken from Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures, so it is reasonable to assume that this Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng is also taken from that catalogue. In any case, since LDSBJ is not based on the contents of texts, it is not possible to know, from what is written in the catalogue alone, which title refers to the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian or to the Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng. DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 also includes the two titles Zhai jing , ascribed to Zhi Qian, and Ba guan zhai jing, ascribed to Jingsheng. It shows the length of the former (four sheets), but not that of the latter. Hayashiya claims that there is no record of length for the Ba guan zhai jing because the text was not extant at that time. (DZKZM also shows Ba fa shan su jing 八法善宿經 as an alternate title of the Ba guan zhai jing, allegedly on the basis of Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄, but Hayashiya states that this part of the record may be unreliable because it is not seen in any other catalogues.) Since both Jingtai and DZKZM show the length of the Zhai jing as four sheets, the text should be slightly shorter than three and a half registers in the format of the Taishō, and this makes it certain that T87 is the text recorded in those catalogues. Unlike the other catalogues after CSZJJ, KYL lists three titles: the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing, as an anonymous extant Hīnayāna text shown by Sengyou; the Zhai jing as an extant Hīnayāna text ascribed to Zhi Qian (KYL states that these two texts are alternate translations); and the Ba guan zhai jing ascribed to Jingsheng, as an extant single Hīnayāna text. Hayashiya points out that it is KYL that first lists as extant both the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing and the Ba guan zhai jing, a text which was considered lost for a long time. Hayashiya also argues that most of the descriptions and ascriptions KYL gives for these titles do not have to be taken seriously. For example, KYL’s comment that the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing was produced in the Song period is made tentatively based on the simple fact that the title was included in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. Such suppositions about dating are made by KYL in re-listing 307 titles in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures that are omitted in LDSBJ, including the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing. Thus, the Song dating of the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing can be easily be rejected if the style of the text is found to be that of the W. Jin 西晋 or earlier. In addition, the ascription of the Ba guan zhai jing to Jingsheng does not have any convincing grounds, for the following reason: While the three titles were given to one text in the previous catalogues, the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing and another text (which can be entitled Ba guan zhai jing) were discovered by the time of Jingsheng. As the Zhai jing was considered extant throughout, and the Youpoyi Duoshejia jing was easily identifiable from its title, the title Ba guan zhai jing was given to the second of the two rediscovered texts, with the addition of the ascription given by LDSBJ. Hence, again, the ascription to Jingsheng can be rejected unproblematically if the style of the text is found to be that of W. Jin or earlier. Hayashiya points out that it is difficult to determine which of T88 and T89 is the Ba guan zhai jing listed in Dao'an. All we know is that, at the time of Sengyou, both the Ba guan zhai jing in Dao'an and the Ba guan zhai jing in the catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were extant, the latter being an alternate issue 異出 of the former, while neither the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian nor the Youboyi Duoshejia jing 優婆夷堕舎迦經 was extant. Given this, either the alternate issue of the Ba guan zhai jing could be the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian, or the Youboyi Duoshejia jing could actually refer to the same text as one of the three other titles. However, Hayashiya asserts that at least it is clear that the three text in the Taishō have the style of the the Three Kingdoms 三國代 or of the W. Jin the latest. Hence, the ascription of T89 to Jingsheng and the classification of T88 as a scripture of the Song period cannot be correct. He also points out that the existence of the three old texts strongly suggests that the entry on the Ba guan zhai jing in Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures is not a repeat entry of the Zhai jing ascribed to Zhi Qian, as Fajing might have thought, Hayashiya concludes that it is certain that the Ba guan zhai jing of Dao'an is either T88 or T89, although exactly which one unknown. As their style of is that of the W. Jin or earlier, T88 and T89 should be reclassified as anonymous scriptures of the W. Jin period or earlier, correcting the ascription and classification given by the Taishō. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 129c18 |
Ba guan zhai jing is given in an interlinear note in Fajing as an alternate title for the Zhai jing, and ascribed to Zhi Qian (cf. T87):齋經一卷(一名八關齋經一名優婆夷墮合迦經出第五十五卷) (吳黃武年支謙譯). This is the only time the title Ba guan zhai jing appears in Fajing. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 92c23 |
The ascription of T89 to Juqu Jingsheng found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. 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. — 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 |
[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 |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 459 |
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 Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17a14. 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 Ba guan zhai jing 八關齋經 T89, attributed in the present canon (T) to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Mizuno 1989] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. "Kan'yaku Chū agon kyō to Zōichi agon kyō 漢訳『中阿含経』と『増一阿含経』." Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 18 (1989): 1-42[L]. Chinese translation: "Hanyi Zhong ahan jing yu Zengyi ahan jing 漢譯《中阿含經》與《増一阿含經》," in Shuiye Hongyuan [=Mizuno Kōgen ], Fojiao wenxian yanjiu: Shuiye Hongyuan zhuzuo xuanji (1) 佛教文獻研究‧水 野 弘 元 著 作 選 集( 一), translated by Xu Yangzhu 許洋主, 509-579. Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2003. |
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that EĀ ws translated twice (see separate CBC@ entry), and proposes that vestiges of the lost, second translation (which he ascribes to *Dharmanandin/Zhu Fonian) survive as a group of individual sūtras in the Taishō: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684. This entry lists those texts as a group. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|