| Identifier | T0066 [T] |
| Title | 魔嬈亂經 [T] |
| Date | 魏呉 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hung et al. 2010] |
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 |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Hung et al. 2010] Hung, Jen-Jou, Marcus Bingenheimer and Simon Wiles. "Quantitative Evidence for a Hypothesis Regarding the Attribution of Early Buddhist Translations." Literary and Linguistic Computing 25, n. 1 (2010): 119-134. |
|
On the basis of computer stylometrics, Hung et al. argued that Mizuno was right in thinking that this group of texts share a common author, but did not support the identification of the author(s) as (Zhu Fonian and) Dharmanandi(n). 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. |
|
External evidence suggests that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva. Mizuno attempts to find vestiges of the "lost" second translation for each collection, and determine their relation with the extant, transmitted, intact full collections. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for MĀ (arguments for EĀ are treated in a separate entry). Mizuno reports that both the external records and the extant T26 align, and on that basis, confirms that T26 is the second translation of MĀ by Saṅghadeva. In fact, Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Saṅghadeva’s second translations, because we find elsewhere in the canon (in the sections spanning T27-98 for MĀ, and T126-151 for EĀ) scattered individual sūtras that evince a uniform style; according to Mizuno, this style is that of “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. For MĀ, these sūtras are (hereafter "MĀ-alt"): MĀ-alt: 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 also identifies as vestiges of "EĀ-alt" the following sūtras, which he holds share the same style as MĀ-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684.) 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 24 MĀ-alt sūtras, 23 are found in Sengyou’s "Shiyi zajing lu" while one is recorded in the “Jing lü lunlu” 經律論錄 (but without ascription). Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taishō for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ. Next, Mizuno also examines excerpts in the Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed by Baochang to MĀ and EĀ. Mizuno lists 5 from MĀ. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon—specifically, T79, which is one of the MĀ-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 MĀ entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first MĀ 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: Sharon Chi |
|
|
No |
[Unebe 1970] Unebe Toshihide 畝部俊英. "Jiku Butsunen no kenkyū: Kan'yaku Zōichi agon kyō no yakushutsu wo megutte 竺仏念の研究 漢訳『増壱阿含経』の訳出をめぐって." Nagoya daigaku bungaku bu kenkyū ronshū 名古屋大学文学部研究論集 51 (1970): 3-38. — 28 |
The main aim of Unebe's study is to address the translatorship of the extant Ekottarikāgama T125. Unebe bases his argument on a combination of rigorous scrutiny of external evidence, and the analysis of one restricted set of stylistic markers (internal evidence), viz., terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones. Unebe discovers that translators down to the time of Zhu Fonian and Kumārajīva generally translated saṃyak-, as it enters into these terms (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as zheng 正. Zhu Fonian, however, renders the same element as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). Unebe also discovers that four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MĀ", and two from his "alternate EĀ" feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MĀ); and T127 and T140 (EĀ). This implies that these texts, too, were originally translated by a team that included Zhu Fonian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Mizuno 1969] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. “Chū agon kyō kaidai 中阿含経解題.” Kokuyaku issaikyō 国訳一切経, Agon bu 阿含部 6. Revised Edition, 1969: 403-411. Cited in Hung et al. 2008. |
|
Mizuno suggested that a group of 24 discourses originally belonged to an alternate translation of the Madhyamāgama (MĀ): 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 further suggested that this group was translated by Zhu Fonian and Dharmanandi(n). Cf. also Hung et al. 2010. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 1309-1316 |
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 archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Hayashiya claims that probably the Mo shi Mulian jing 魔試目連經 and the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations are the same text, since Sengyou did not see the former and the two shared the same alternate title Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing 弊魔試摩目連經. Hayashiya also claims that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujilan fu jing should be seen as different texts or alternate translations, even though one of the alternate title of the latter, Bi Mo shimo Mulian jing, may well be an alternate title of the Mowang shi Mulian jing, which Sengyou states is roughly the same as the Mo raoluan jing. Usually, when Sengyou says any two texts are “roughly the same”, the two are virtually identical, with minor differences made during the process of transmission. However, in this case, the claim that the Mo raoluan jing and the Mowang ru Mujielan fo jing are "roughly the same" is likely to have been taken from previous catalogues (because Sengyou did not see the Mo shi Mulian jing, which title seems to refer to the same text as the Mowang shi Mulian jing), and hence it is no indication of an independent judgement on Sengyou’s part. LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄: KYL 開元錄: The Mo raoluan jing, regarded as eight sheets long by Jingtai, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing rediscovered at the time of Zhisheng are extant today as the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 T66, and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 T67 respectively. Hayashiya maintains that T66 and T67 are alternate translation of the same text, but clearly not composed by the same translator or in the same period. Hayashiya then shows that it is a challenge to determinate which of T66 and T67 was the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂經 or the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 as they appear in old catalogues, because they share the main story, and both contain the words rao 嬈 and Bi Mo 弊魔, and neither of them has 魔嬈亂 or 弊魔試目連. However, regarding the title Mowang ru Mijielan fu jing, Hayashiya argues, it probably refers to T66, because it contains a passage that directly corresponds to that title. The vocabulary and tone of T66 and T67 show that both were composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, and that T66 is older than T67. In addition, as stated above the content of T66 fits the title Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing better than T67. Thus, Hayashiya claims that T66 was the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, as listed in Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations, and the most plausible date of composition for the text is the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Hyashiya maintains that, given that T66 is likely to be the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, and that the unseen Bi Mo shi Mulian jing in Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures was probably just an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing, the other surviving text, T67, must be the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. In fact, this title is listed with Mo raoluan jing as an alternate title in KYL and the Taishō. Thus, it is natural to regard T67 as the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures. It is an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. LDSBJ and KYL’s attribution of T67 (listed as the Mo raoluan jing) to Zhi Qian is incorrect, since LDSBJ shows no solid grounds for the ascription, and the date of composition of T67 is the W. Jin 西晋 period, which is not the time of Zhi Qian. Moreover, even if the text they were referring to was actually T66, the vocabulary and tone of T66 are also clearly different from that of Zhi Qian. Hayashiya concludes that the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations and the Mo raoluan jing of Sengyou’s catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures were the only two alternate translations of the Xiang mo jing 降魔經 in the Madhyamāgama (MĀ T26(131)), and the Bi Mo shi Mulian jing of Sengyou’s catalogue is an alternate title of the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing. The surviving T66 and T67 should be recorded respectively as the Mowang ru Mujielan fu jing of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period and the Mo raoluan jing of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 55a2 |
The dating of T66 to the E. Han in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates to LDSBJ, where it is entered among a list of anonymous texts at the end of Fascicle 4, which treats works of the Han dynasty. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 129c14 |
Treated by Fajing as an “alternate translation of a separate chapter from the Madhyamāgama” 中阿含別品異譯, without an ascription (though appearing in a list that includes some ascriptions in interlinear notes). An interlinear note in Fajing gives some alternate titles: (一名弊魔試目連經一名魔王入目揵蘭腹經出第三十卷). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 24c24 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T66 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): 魔嬈亂經一卷(與魔王試目連大同小異). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|