| Identifier | T0020 [T] |
| Title | 佛開解梵志阿颰經 [T] |
| Date | 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Unspecified | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941] |
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 traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 883-888 |
An Aba jing 阿拔經 is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録. Although the text was lost at the time of Sengyou, surely it had existed, since Dao’an recorded it. Nonetheless, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu, LDSBJ 三寶記, and KYL 開元錄 do not list the text, at least under the title 阿拔經. This was apparently because the Aba jing 阿拔經 was considered to be the same text as the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scripture 失譯雜經錄. Dao'an's catalogue says that the Aba jing 阿拔經 is an alternate translation of a text from the Dīrghāgama 長阿含 T1. The Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures is also an extract 抄 of from an āgama 阿含, and has an alternate title Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經. Now, the editors of Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu saw a text called the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經. This text was an alternate translation of the Amozhou jing 阿摩晝經 in the Dīrghāgama T1(20). As such, probably the editors of Fajing judged that the Aba jing and the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures, viz., the Fanzhi Aba jing, were the same text. Accordingly, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu listed only the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經 (with a slight difference in orthography, 跋 for 颰), but omitted the Aba jing 阿拔經. This Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經, which itself has an alternate Abamona jing 阿拔摩納經, is an alternate title of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. Further, the Abamona jing 阿拔摩納經, another title of the Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿跋經, is also an alternate title of the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list. On this basis, we can see the reason that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu did not list two Aba jing: it considered Aba jing 阿拔經 to be an alternate title of the same text. Accepting Fajing’s judgment, we have to say that Sengyou made a mistake in listing the same text twice, by showing the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list, and recording the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing separately in the the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. Sengyou did not see the text of the Aba jing 阿拔經, because it was lost, and so his mistake is understandable. In any case, since we know that the Fanzhi Aba jing = the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing was also called as 阿拔摩納經, then the Aba jing 阿拔經 and the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 should be treated as the same text. This Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 is extant today as T20. Its vocabulary and tone are old, and it is natural to consider this text as the one in Dao’an’s list. Yancong and Jingtai 靜泰錄 followed Fajing in listing only one Fanzhi Aba jing. Jingtai records the length of the text as thirteen sheets 紙 long. T20 is about thirteen and a half registers 段 long, but there are verses in the text, so the length can be seen as roughly thirteen sheets. This being the case, it is almost certain that T20 is the text that has survived since the Sui 隋 period. Fajing and Yancong listed the Fanzhi Aba jing only, but did not say whether they relied on Dao’an’s list, or the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures. As such, there is room for a misunderstanding that the description of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing in the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptureswas considered to be genuine, and the Aba jing in Dao’an was the one omitted (it should be the opposite: the Aba jing 阿拔經 was the one kept and 佛開解梵志阿颰經 was omitted in the catalogues). Hayashiya claims that, in order to avoid such confusion, it should have been made clear that the Aba jing was the initial entry and the Fo kaijie... was the entry that was omitted. LDSBJ 三寶記 lists two texts: a Fo kaijie Aba fanzhi jing 佛開解阿拔梵志經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, and a Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 ascribed to Fayong 法勇 in the E. Jin 東晋 period. LDSBJ provides no support for the ascription to Zhi Qian, while suggesting that the ascription to Fayong 法勇 is based on the Zhao catalogue 趙錄. The vocabulary and tone of the surviving T20 are highly unlikely to be Zhi Qian’s. They are not Fayong's, either, because they are too old to be his and because the Zhao catalouge 趙錄, the alleged source of the ascription, in principle does not show the name of the translator in each entry, so it is unlikely that catalogue actually stated that the text was Fayong's (Hayashiya refers to Chapter 7 in Part 2 of Hayashiya 1941, the present source, for a detailed discussion of the Zhao catalogue 趙錄). This being the case, it is safe to say that T20 is the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list, although the Taishō says that the text is Zhi Qian’s, following KYL 開元錄, which in turn adopted LDSBJ’s descriptions. Thus, Hayashiya maintains that CSZJJ 出三藏記集 is the only reliable source regarding the ascription of the Aba jing 阿拔經, and that LDSBJ’s classification of the two titles with different translators is doubly incorrect in showing two texts when there was only one, and in providing wrong and groundless attributions. Hence both entries should be eliminated. Hayashiya concludes that only the Aba jing 阿拔經 in Dao’an’s list should be retained, as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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). — 50, 336 n. 137 |
|
According to Zürcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived. This entry lists texts which are ascribed to Zhi Qian in the present Taishō, yet do not appear among Sengyou’s attributions. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 57c22, 72a20 |
The ascription of T20 to Zhi Qian found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. The same title is also ascribed to Fayong 法勇 in LDSBJ, citing the Zhao catalogue 趙錄. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Greene 2016] Greene, Eric M. “A Reassessment of the Early History of Chinese Buddhist Vegetarianism.” Asia Major (3rd series) 29, no. 1 (2016): 1-43. — 13-14, n. 36 |
Citing Okayama Kajime and Jungnok Park, Greene writes, "There are many highly suspicious passages throughout T20 that are found in no other versions of the text and which look almost certain to have been composed in China." Greene notes that for him, Park's "examples are not all persuasive". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 130b8 |
Allowing for variant readings, a title almost certainly to be identified with this one is 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): 梵志阿跋經一卷(一名阿拔摩納[v.l. 汭 YM]經). The word 摩納[v.l. 汭] does not appear in T20. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 26b29 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T20 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: 佛開解梵志阿颰經一卷(抄阿含或云梵志阿颰[v.l. + 經 M]). 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. — 141-145 |
|
As many as 70 titles newly ascribed to Zhi Qian by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ are found in the catalogues of lost scriptures in CSZJJ. In particular, 56 titles of the 70 feature in the “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, which was newly compiled by Sengyou himself. This strongly suggests that Fei arbitrarily assigned ascriptions to a large portion of the scriptures ascribed to Zhi Qian by taking titles in groups from Sengyou’s list. Sakaino suggests that it is “so peculiar as to defy comprehension” (實に考えられない不思議のこと) that Sengyou’s list contains more than 860 anonymous scriptures in all, but Fei appears, apparently by sheer happenstance, to have found 14 titles translated by Zhi Qian concentrated in single stretch of only 26 titles (T2145 [LV] 28c3-28). Elsewhere (80-86), Sakaino argues further that Sengyou’s list is in fact organised by topic [it certainly could not be organised by translator, since he regards the texts it contains as anonymous], which makes this clustering of supposed Zhi Qian texts all the stranger. This is part of a broader pattern that Sakaino observes elsewhere in his book, whereby Fei repeatedly assigns new ascriptions holus-bolus, associating groups of texts from Sengyou’s list with the same purported translator. Sakaino does suggest that Fei seems to have referred occasionally to other sources in assigning some of these ascriptions to Zhi Qian, and might even have examined the content of a few texts himself. Sakaino also points out that if CSZJJ gives an alternative title, Fei uses that title, e.g., the 自守亦不自守經 in CSZJJ is listed as不自守意經 in LDSBJ (143-144). Sakaino gives further arguments about some particular scriptures. 6 scriptures which did not appear in Dao’an, but then do appear in CSZJJ with a note that they are listed in the bei lu 別錄 (首楞嚴, 龍施女, 法鏡, 鹿子, 十二門大方等, and 頼吒和羅), are probably not to be regarded as Zhi Qian’s works. The two texts extant among those six (the *Nāgadatta-sūtra 龍施女 T557, and the *Rāṣṭrapāla-sūtra 賴吒和羅 T68), as discussed earlier (128, 134-135), should therefore not be ascribed to Zhi Qian. 21 scriptures that apparently were taken from sources other than CSZJJ are probably also not Zhi Qian’s works. However, Sakaino does except the 貝多樹經 T713 (*Nidāna-sūtra, Nagaropama-sūtra), the ascription of which to Zhi Qian he says should be accepted. 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. — 130-131 |
Sakaino maintains that the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 [T20 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is indeed a translation by Zhi Qian, since its terminology includes words specific to him, such as理家 for kulapati (for which 居士 is more common), 溝港, and 頻來. 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. — 129-135 |
Sakaino lists 29 extant “Hīnayāna” titles ascribed to Zhi Qian in LDSBJ (list on 129-130) [the number seems to be 28, strictly speaking, since, as Sakaino himself states, the last one in his list, the Zhuanji bai yuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200, was listed initially in DTNDL, followed by KYL --- AI]. He judges that there is hardly any doubt that the ten titles ascribed to Zhi Qian already in CSZJJ are truly his work. However, regarding the other 19 [18?] titles, Sakaino points out that all but four [three?] of them were already listed by Dao’an or Sengyou, but under other attributions or associated with other information about provenance (listed below): In Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 安公古異經錄 of CSZJJ: 不自守意經 T107 In Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄: 七知經 T27 In Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄 [By this Sakaino seems to mean 新集安公失譯經錄 --- AI]: 諸法本經 T59 In Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄 [By this Sakaino seems to mean 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 --- AI]: 戒消伏災經 [戒消災經 T1477] According to Sakaino, therefore, only the following titles among the 19 titles might actually be Zhi Qian’s work: 佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20: 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 |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
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 Aba jing 阿拔經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 安公云出長阿含或云阿拔摩納經; 18a7. 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 as Fanzhi Aba jing 梵志阿颰經 T20, attributed in the present canon to Zhi Qian 支謙. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2023] Nattier, Jan. "The 'Missing Majority': Dao'an's Anonymous Scriptures Revisted." In Chinese Buddhism and the Scholarship of Erik Zürcher, edited by Jonathan Silk and Stefano Zacchetti, 94-140. Leiden: Brill, 2023. — 95 n. 7, 115-116 w. nn. 73-75, |
Nattier argues that a small group of anonymous scriptures, comprising T5, T20, T46, T145, T392, T507, and T582, were probably composed in the South in the third century. Her argument is based upon the presence of some very rare vocabulary/terminology, which otherwise appears (in datable texts) in translations produced in this time and place (T225B, T152), and also on the absence of other, very common terms. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|