| Identifier | T0090 [T] |
| Title | 鞞摩肅經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| 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 |
[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 |
[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 |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 134b1 |
Treated by Fajing as a byproduct/offshoot text 別生 from the Madhyamāgama”, without an ascription. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 91c13 |
The ascription of T90 to Guṇabhadra found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 27a18 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T90 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), and is further identified as an excerpt 抄 from an Āgama: 鞞摩肅經一卷(抄中阿含). 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. — 633-638 |
|
Sakaino argues that dozens of new ascriptions to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 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, 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). Guṇabhadra is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Guṇabhadra to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. According to Sakaino, Fei lists 78 titles as Guṇabhadra’s work (including the 13 already ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ). Among them, as many as 48 titles were actually taken from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 新集失譯錄. (Sakaino claims that 13 titles ascribed to Guṇabhadra in CSZJJ are the only reliable record of Guṇabhadra’s work.) To illustrate the problem, Sakaino lists the groups of titles from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” that were newly ascribed to Guṇabhadra by Fei without any solid grounds (635-637). Thus, Sakaino demonstrates that Fei took titles from the certain groups in Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” and allocated them to Guṇabhadra (Sakaino implies clearly that the ascriptions of them to Guṇabhadra are baseless). 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 |
[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 |
|