| Identifier | T0039 [T] |
| Title | 頂生王故事經 [T] |
| Date | 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Faju 法炬 [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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 768-775 |
A Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu shows this text as identical with Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 since Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 is an alternate translation of the Si zhou jing 四洲經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26.60 [A Taishō note equates this text to Divyāvadāna nos. 39, 40]. However, Sengyou 僧祐 listed the Dingsheng wang gushi jing separately in his catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, along with another text with a similar title, the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經. Both of these tests were extant in Sengyou’s time. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, these three texts are different from one another. In the Taishō, we have extant the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經T40 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39, which are alternate translations of the Sizhou jing 四洲經. The styles of both texts show clearly that they were produced in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. Hayashiya points out also that the word Dingsheng wang 頂生王is not used in the Wentuojie wang jing T40, and Wentuojie wang is not used in the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39. The Sanskrit word for Wentuojie wang 文陀竭王 must have been Māndhātṛ or Māndhātā, and the word for Dingsheng wang 頂生王 should have been Mūrdhagata or Mūrdata. Thus, it could not have been the case that the Wentuojie wang jing T40 was initially called Dingsheng wang gushi jing or Dingshengwang yinyuan jing, nor that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 was initially called the Wentuojie wang jing. Thus, it is safe to regard the Wentuojie wang jing T40 as identical with the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 in Dao'an's list, and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing T39 as corresponding either to the title Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 or Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as recorded in Sengyou's catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, and some other catalogues that followed it, are therefore incorrect in classifying the Wentuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 and the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as the same text, while omitting the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 altogether. On the other hand, LDSBJ 三寶記, and following it, KYL 開元錄, treated the three titles as different: but they give the Wangtuojie wang jing 文陀竭王經 as translated by *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖; the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 as translated by Faju 法炬; and the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Hayashiya maintains that all of these attributions are incorrect or groundless. [For his arguments about T40, see the separate entry on T40.] It remains undetermined whether the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經T39 corresponds to the Dingsheng wang gushi jing or the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing in Sengyou's list of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, but there is no support at all for the claim that either of these was translated by Faju 法炬. If T39 is the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 of Sengyou's list 失譯雑經錄, it must be an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. [For Hayashiya’s arguments about the Dingsheng wang yinyuan jing 頂生王因縁經, see the separate record.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 25a15 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T39 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): 頂生王故事經一卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 63-64 |
Tokiwa states that two of the most commonly cited reasons for claims that LDSBJ is unreliable are: it added 132 titles to Faju’s 法炬 works; and added 108 titles to Tanwulan’s 曇無蘭 works. However, Tokiwa argues that those ascriptions were first given not by LDSBJ, but by previous catalogues. Tokiwa quotes Fei’s words on Faju’s works, which state that titles not included in CSZJJ were actually recorded in some other catalogues, and Fei just collected those ascriptions so that their correctness could be evaluated later (Tokiwa also cites a similar statement by Fei on Tanwulan’s works, 64). Tokiwa claims that the influence of unspecified lost catalogues is often reflected in LDSBJ and KYL. For example, Zhisheng 智昇states that the syllables pinpi 頻毗 in Pinpishaluo wang yi Fo gongyang jing 頻毗沙羅王詣佛供養經 T133 could be written pinpo 頻婆, and that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39 was also called Dingsheng wang jing 頂生王經. Zhisheng would not have made such comments, Tokiwa argues, if there had not existed some other catalogue(s) that used those alternate characters/titles. He also presents similar examples from the titles ascribed to Tanwulan in LDSBJ, including: the entry on the Huanshi Batuo shenzhou jing 幻師跋陀神呪經 T1378, which has a note stating that Batuo 跋陀 could also be written Potuo 波陀; another entry on the Jusa guo niao wang jing 拘薩國烏王經 with a note stating that character 羅 could be added; and on the Guhu niao jing 蟲狐鳥經 with a note stating that鳥 sometimes also reads 烏(63-64). 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). — 70, 345 n. 254 |
|
"Dao’an only speaks about four works translated in the period 290-360 by Faju 法炬, a monk of unknown origin, and about two others translated by Faju together with the śramaṇa Fali 法立.... Later bibliographies have made Faju...the target of...wild attributions: no less than 132 works figure under his name in the late sixth century [LDSBJ], which number is reduced to 40 in the somewhat more critical [KYL]" (70). [MR: In fact, the passage in CSZJJ referred to in Zürcher's note (345 n. 254) shows that Zürcher has made an error here; the two texts supposedly translated with Faju were *among* the four translated by Fali (右四部。凡十二卷。晉惠懷時。沙門法炬譯出。其法句喻福田二經。炬與沙門法立共譯出; T2145:55.9c19-10a3), reducing the total number of ascriptions supported by this evidence even further. The four texts listed are: 樓炭經 (prob. = *Lokasthāna[?] 大樓炭經 T23) The main significance of Zürcher's remark is negative---the remaining ascriptions to Faju and Fali in the modern (Taishō) canon should be regarded as weaker and more open to suspicion. This record lists all such texts: T33, T34, T39, T49, T55, T64, T65, T70, T111, T113, T119, T122, T133, T178, T215, T332, T500, T501, T502, T503, T508, T509, T695, T739. However, we should also note that Zürcher adds:] "Sengyou states that Fali made a great number of translations which were lost during the troubles of the yongjia era (307-313) before they had been copied and put into circulation, a remark which is repeated by Huijiao in his Gaoseng zhuan....It may...have happened that some works were rediscovered at a rather later date, but Sengyou's silence about Faju remains puzzling. Dao'an's catalouge, our invaluable guide for the early period, gives out around 300 AD; although Dao'an compiled it at Xiangyang in 374 and probably added new entries until his death in 385, he did not include any works translated after the end of the Western Jin." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 67a19 |
The ascription of T39 to Faju 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. — 152-159 |
|
Sakaino presents a list of 132 texts that LDSBJ newly ascribed to Faju, and points out that almost all of them (129 titles) were taken from the Sengyou’s “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous scriptures” 續 失譯錄 in CSZJJ (one was taken from Dao’ans catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄). Sakaino also demonstrates that in assigning these new ascriptions, Fei arbitrarily took titles in groups, holus-bolus, from certain concentrated sections of Sengyou’s list. This is part of a broader pattern that Sakaino studies at several points in his book (see esp. 80-86), in which he identifies such group-wise reassignment of texts from Sengyou’s anonymous lists to single translators as characteristic of Fei Changfang’s working pattern. He points out that Sengyou’s list was organised by topic, as it could be inferred from the titles of texts, and not by translator (as it could not be, since Sengyou was explicitly stating that he did not know who the translator was); this makes it all the more improbable that texts due to single translators would be clustered in the list in the manner required by Fei’s re-ascriptions. In Faju’s case, for instance, this has the absurd consequence of making him appear to be a specialist in translations of texts that happen to have the word bhikṣu 比丘 in the title. 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. |
|
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 |
|